Posted 5 years ago on Aug. 3, 2012, 7:02 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Many who are part of the Occupy Movement would like to see a libertarian socialist / anarchist-type society based on workplace democracy and community control established sometime in the future; a society where the people have taken the power back from the financial elite. But how should we do it? I’ve presented some suggestions, but what do you guys think? What should be the strategies and tactics of the 99%?

445 Comments

It may be many in the Occupy movement, but it's a very small number in comparison to the actual population. There will be no change as long as the anarchists only talk and sit around waiting for a spontaneous workers uprising that will never happen. Even if it does the anarchists lack the organization to capitalize on a collapse. Union membership is under 12% in the US, and you can't count on a majority of them to support libertarian socialism.

Leaving aside the advantages or disadvantages of libertarian socialism, you are generations from getting it accepted by a significant minority of the population. The 99% you mention is an economic group not a group united by any political philosophy.

Keep your dreams, if you wish, but there should be some organized effort to make real changes in the system we have, while you wait centuries for society to mature to a point where an anarchistic society has at least a chance to succeed.

Hi. I actually don't disagree much with this. It's going to take a long time and a lot of convincing etc. It'll take time to establish a libertarian socialist society - at least on a larger scale.

But back to my original question: How should we strip the wealthy from their power? I assume you want changes; what kind of system would you like to see come into place, and how could this be achieved in you opinion?

I think the representative republic we have is superior to a libertarian socialist society. The problem with both is with the individual. The wealthy have more power then they should because a majority don't bother to stay informed. A sizable minority don't even bother to vote and that's not likely to change under a different system, it will just change who has the power. A republic is also easier for a minority to alter.

If I had my wish, I would have a group like Occupy go out and find candidates to run for Congress and make changes from within the system. As corrupt as the system may be, that is a path that seems likely to me to have more success then preaching about anarchy. The anarchists number less then 1% of the population, at best, and in spite of their over representation in college faculty lounges, their numbers haven't changed much in the last 50 years. I see anarchy as a dead end for a number of reasons.

Yes, you may agree or disagree with the tea party goals, but they have an agenda and they get people to run on it and have been a thorn in the side of both parties because of their dedication to their objective.

Occupy had the same opportunity, to set a clear agenda and run people in primaries. Unfortunately I believe they wasted the opportunity and prefer to wait for some massive workers revolution. Anarchy is, in my opinion, an idea that is only workable on paper.

Funny thing. 60,000+ people gathered two weeks ago to learn, listen, organize for three days and and spent one entire day voluntarily serving in over 300 service projects in the Dallas area. But the media ignored it. Why? Because it involved conservatives and Tea Partiers doing good...waking up.....standing together.

Should make you wonder about what else isn't being covered by the Main Stream Media...:-)

What you or I see the tea party as doing isn't the point. The point is they are actually having an impact on things. We are not. We're sitting around in little groups suggesting all sorts of changes with no organized effort to actually do anything to implement them.

Of course our current government isn't working as it should! People in large part don't agree on what course of action to take and a significant segment don't bother to stay informed or participate at all.

Doesn't matter what they are. What matters is that their candidates are winning seats in Congress where real change can be made to happen. There is no reason why here couldn't be Occupy backed candidates winning seats.

But shouldn't we try to eliminate/decrease the apathy and ignorance? and shouldn't our end goal at least, be to abolish capitalism and create a society where people are in control of their lives and work?

The core ideas of LS is that people should be able to control their own lives; their workplace, their communities and so on. Already today we see a lot of successful co-ops fex, increasing in number, so why not work for more cooperatives combined with strong local democracy? Is that really that unrealistic? What makes you say that?

I would not spend the time working toward a social structure I believed was unrealistic, and, in my opinion doomed to fail. It requires an altruism, egalitarian sprit, and willingness to work cooperatively that I do not believe human beings possess. It requires a level of engagement in governing that the population in general has not shown on anything other then a small scale.

I'm glad co-ops are forming and are successful. That shows that people do already have some control over their lives and can, through their own efforts, get control over a workplace they create for themselves. If co-ops are successful over decades maybe the idea will spread. Then again maybe not, libertarian socialism offers few protections for the minority and requires a suppression of individuality.

You blog doesn't demonstrate man is altruistic, and in his debate Chomsky simply says he believes man is altruistic. That doesn't prove anything, except that he is operating on faith. Libertarian socialism is a religion with him, but it's a religion with fewer believers today then it had a century ago.

Representation and equality under the law evolved over time, people have, on paper, the right to determine what happens in their life now. There is no reason to believe things would be better under libertarian socialism or all that much different. You say it gives people a say, but a large portion of the population doesn't exercise their right to participate in government now and has voluntarily given up their say. Worse still the typical voter doesn't want to stay informed on the issues. It's foolish to think any of that will suddenly change. Direct democracy could easily become rule by an emotional mob, endless recalling of representatives, endless debate.

Anarchy in Spain may have done a lot to show that, in practice, libertarian socialism wasn't much different then any other form of totalitarian movement. The Spanish anarchists found it necessary to threaten the death penalty for violating some of the political changes they imposed and there were many atrocities committed by the anarchists during that period.

Your final statement about individual rights seems to contradict the typical position of confiscating private property and turning it over to the workers. Do individuals have the right to property? Will their rights be constitutionally protected form a majority?

There are too many points being offered to list my objections in this forum. I'm simply not convinced that you have correctly interpreted what you see as evidence in primitive societies. We're back to faith, you are a believer, I am not.

Spain in the 1930's was certainly a dangerous place and bad things were done by all sides. Saying that doesn't justify what the anarchists did (murder of suspected opponents, the burning of churches), it simply means they were just as bad as the fascists. I don't see my original statement as wrong at all, if you were not a strong supporter of the anarchists you kept your opinions to yourself or you risked death.

Your ideas about the workers somehow being entitled to the means of production is outdated. Most businesses are small and owned by a small number of individuals. Does a two to one majority give the receptionist and dental hygienist the right to dictate to the dentist how his practice is run? Neither of them invested in the practice, they do not deserve any say in how it's run.

Even in large corporations, I see no reason why the desires of the workers should take priority over the desires of stock holders that actually invested, risked something, and own that property.

Few constitutions are completely unchangeable, but they do require much more then a simple majority to be changed. That is as it should be, to prevent a tyranny by the majority.

Actually you are the believer. Altruism and cooperation has, not just among humans, but also in nature in general, developed thru evolution for the reasons mentioned in the article. This is not controversial among evolutionary biologists etc.

"Spain in the 1930's was certainly a dangerous place and bad things were done by all sides. Saying that doesn't justify what the anarchists did (murder of suspected opponents, the burning of churches)"

No,murders were mostly doen by fascists and bolshevists, and church-burnings were mostly done by The Radical Party and others. But listen this is a little beside the point. Yes, I know that there were things done by anarchists that I would not support/advocate, certainly not in a peaceful society, but the point was that a relatively large scale society based on libertarian socialist principles was established - we know it can work.

"Your ideas about the workers somehow being entitled to the means of production is outdated."

No, this is very essential in creating a real democracy where poeple are able to control their own lives

"Most businesses are small and owned by a small number of individuals."

The fact that a buiness is small is no excuse for some individuals being able to have undemocratic power over others.

Decitions in the economy must be run democratically by the participants.

"Few constitutions are completely unchangeable, but they do require much more then a simple majority to be changed."

That means minority rule. That's called tyranny.

"That is as it should be, to prevent a tyranny by the majority."

This is nonsense. Democracy means that everyone has a say in the things that affect their lives; on some issues the majority agrees with you on other issues they don't. That's how it is to live in a society with other people; you can't always have your will.

Besides, the democracy I'm advocating is one that comes from below, making democratic say proportional to how much you're affected.

You have control over your life, we all do. You are free to convince enough people to change our constitution. It will have to be greater then 50% plus one, this insures something closer to a consensus of all the people, which you'd have to have and maintain in order for any form of socialism to have a prayer at working.

Currently anarchists don't show up at all on political surveys, their numbers are well under 1%. Currently I'm in the majority and the majority says no to libertarian socialism, for a variety of reasons, none of which your arguments have altered. Because you do have control over your life you're free to spend several life times trying to convince the majority to alter that judgement.

There is a reason anarchy has not advanced at all in society, the majority don't want it. As you say sometimes you can't have your will. The vast majority don't want anarchy. It was put in place in Spain with force, the government collapsed and the anarchists were armed and organized. They maintained power with a degree of terror and force. You can rationalize it all you want but what they did was wrong and it wasn't the will of the majority.

There isn't much point in discussing natural science with you, you seem convinced any social behavior is self-less when it may just as easily be based solely on improving the chance for individual success. You're view on life not taking the easiest path to success is simply wrong.

"The system may be corrupt and hard to change, but I believe that it could be done far more easily and quickly then changing the feelings of a majority in this country toward libertarian socialism."

But look at Nader. He has tried to run in these heavily corporate-controlled elections. He got marginalized, and was one of the causes that Bush jr got elected.

There would have to be a huge change of opinions in the population, whether we want LS or a new election system, wouldn't it?

"What happened You've had over a century and have actually lost support over that time."

Come on. We've talked about that. Attitudes can change. I think the time we're in is the beginning of a global uprising against all forms of tyranny - both state and private.

"Capitalism has and will continue to slowly evolving as more regulation creeps in, most people in this country still believe it can operate satisfactorily."

I know, but that has to change at some point, because capitalism isn't just immoral and weakening democracy, it's also not sustainable.

"The wealth that depends on perpetual growth is certainly unsustainable"

Exactly.

"..but not the basic ideas of supply and demand"

I don't oppose that. We should use our wealth and resourses to create a sustainable society that produces the things people need and want. But it must donewithin a framework of democracy.

"private ownership"

No, that's undemocratic. Illegitimate hierarchies must be dismantled.

"using money"

There are alternatives to the money system we have today; we should study them and see if those would create a better society for all.

"and work for hire"

The important thing is that the economic institutions are under democratic control by the participants.

"It's true you never know what could happen, but if you wish to be the most productive you go with what has the best chance of working in the present"

Sure. I'm just not sure if running candidates thru the corporate-controlled elections would be the best solutions.

I think we should have an end goal based on our principles - a future society that is not sketched out in detail of course, but is based on how we think society would create a good and decent life for all living there.

"We're going to have to agree to disagree on human nature"

My views on human nature are not controvercial, I can't see how you'd disagree.

"and anarchy."

I think it's sad that you wouldn't agree that people should be able to be in control of their own life, workplace and community.

"I don't see any evidence of the level of selflessness in people needed to make LS work."

Given the soceity we have today I can understand why you've reached that concusion. I mentioned in the article why this society is the way it is. Please give it some thought.

"Individual freedom is another area where I won't ever see LS as preferable to the constitutional guarantees individuals have now."

Look at Nader? Maybe you should, his party was formed in 1991 and has changed more attitudes then any proponent of LS has, and in far less time. You repeatedly talk about changing attitudes on an idea that has had much less success and far less support then Nader.

Forming a third party is only one possibility for constructive action. Running candidates to influence the agenda of an existing party is another, lobbying for specific laws is also an option. Advocating for LS is likely to be less successful then Nader's efforts. If you don't wish to participate in the system then don't, continue to advocate for a system few want and I doubt will ever accept. Your activity is harmless but it also pointless because doesn't help anyone.

Private ownership is what the majority has gone with, maybe someday you can change attitudes, but your idea today has almost no support. Right now, most people want to keep the right to own a business. What you want to call democracy in the workplace, most would see as theft. It isn't democracy if it violates the laws the majority have already agreed to and does not wish to change.

The system accepted by the majority is a trade, work for pay. Exercise your right to go find another job, life is full of hard decisions. Your workers have the freedom to choose to form a co-op if they wish to invest together and run their own business. They don't have the right to take private property because it's too hard or inconvenient to do things on their own.

I agree, your ideas about human nature are not controversial, I simply see them as simplistic and incorrect. The way I see human nature as actually being would lead to LS failing.

The video you linked to takes me into other areas where I believe LS wold be a failure. It too seems to look at situations in a way to promote itself rather then to fairly examine the issue. I do not believe small groups could effectively come together and manage a complex society. This link offers an opinion and it's only one person's anecdote, not proof of anything, it simply offers me some personal validation for my opinion.

"Look back at the opening comment that started this discussion. My original point was to suggest that something be done now, that has a chance of improving the lives of people alive today."

I also think many things must be done now, and as soon as possible.

"To me that means working within the system we have now."

The political system in the US is so corrupt and rotten to the core, it would be hard. But as the Occupy Movement grows it will get more impact being able to push for short term goals.

"Placing all our efforts into promoting libertarian socialism may be nice for people a century or two down the road, if it is successful, but it does nothing to help people today."

No, I think promoting Libertarian Socialism is important now as well. It's a principle thing, and it takes time to convince the masses. Capitalism is not sustainable, it must be dismanlted sooner or later, and the only reasonable alternative is Libertarian Socialism. It is the free just and sustainable society we must strive for.

"Yes attitudes may change, but you're not going to jump from a base of less then 1% of the population to 50% in a lifetime."

History has shown that things have changed pretty fast. Look at the revolutions, look at the collapse of empires and tyrannical systems. You never know..

"I see it as a danger to individual freedom"

Libertarian socialism is the strongest advocate of individual freedom.

"and unworkable due to the basic nature of human beings."

No, it's very compatible with human nature.

"You seem to want everyone to have a say but either you don't like the result of what they have said or refuse to hear them."

If people were introduced to actual ideas of anarchism and not fed this "anarchism=chaos" propaganda, most people would embrace them. Corporate tyranny has been very effective in feeding the population propaganda.

"Their actions have voted repeatedly against libertarian socialism."

And we must continue trying to convince people to embrace the ideas of a more just and free society.

The system may be corrupt and hard to change, but I believe that it could be done far more easily and quickly then changing the feelings of a majority in this country toward libertarian socialism. You've had over a century and have actually lost support over that time.

Capitalism has and will continue to slowly evolving as more regulation creeps in, most people in this country still believe it can operate satisfactorily.

The wealth that depends on perpetual growth is certainly unsustainable, but not the basic ideas of supply and demand, private ownership, barter using money, and work for hire. I don't see those basic ideas as being unsustainable at all.

I don't plan my life around the fact that another planetary extinction event will definitely occur. The approach of planning around an unlikely event is rarely a productive. There is little chance of revolution, there is little chance of convincing the majority, today or in the near future, that LS could work or that capitalism will collapse. It's true you never know what could happen, but if you wish to be the most productive you go with what has the best chance of working in the present, based on the knowledge you have at the moment. Working to elect good representatives has the better chance of actually producing changes then hoping for revolution, government collapse, or LS jumping from no support to 51%.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on human nature and anarchy.
I don't see any evidence of the level of selflessness in people needed to make LS work. My experience shows the opposite.

Individual freedom is another area where I won't ever see LS as preferable to the constitutional guarantees individuals have now. Too many times in the past the majority opinion has been oppressive.

It may be true that you could gain followers if anarchy got a fair open debate, but it's just as likely that many people wouldn't change their mind or harden against it as they learned more of the details. Direct democracy was considered when the US Constitution was written. Considering the lack of intelligent voter involvement today, it was probably the better and wiser decision to go with a republic.

Your last remark takes us back to my original point. You can continue to try to convince people all you wish, you think it would actually work. I don't have to convince people of any such thing. I don't see LS as workable or desirable. I see your efforts as offering little hope of changing anything for several lifetimes. Political action within the system today is a more constructive choice then just proselytizing for libertarian socialism.

To a certain extent. I just want people to be able to control their own lives even more. Making workplaces/institutions democratic would increase that.

"You are free to convince enough people to change our constitution."

Sure.

"It will have to be greater then 50% plus one"

That's minority rule. I don't like minority rule.

"Currently anarchists don't show up at all on political surveys, their numbers are well under 1%."

I am aware of the fact that too few associate with anarchism. I think, though, that if everyone were introduced to the real ideas of anarchism, and not were fed propaganda and lies about it, a vast majority would be in favor of it.

"Currently I'm in the majority and the majority says no to libertarian socialism, for a variety of reasons"

That's mob rule! :)

"Because you do have control over your life you're free to spend several life times trying to convince the majority to alter that judgement."

Freedom of speech is very important, but we should have more freedoms than that. The freedom to be in control of your own life and work is also very important.

"There is a reason anarchy has not advanced at all in society, the majority don't want it."

They must be convinced and enlightened about what anarchism advocates.

"There isn't much point in discussing natural science with you, you seem convinced any social behavior is self-less"

I have never said that. There is a certain amount of self interest of course, but what I'm saying is that solidarity and coopertaion is a big part of human nature (and nature and evolution in general). These are not controvercial views, these views are shared by most evolutionary biologists etc.

You speak of what you want, you say you want democracy, but you're not willing to accept the decision of the majority. Libertarian socialism has been around for over a century, it's been repeatedly rejected by the majority.

The sticking point is always the same, anarchists demand that those that own a business (large or small) take in, essentially as equal partners, their workers. The majority has always seen that as an unreasonable demand. The majority have always seen that as an unjustified and illegal confiscation of private property. You hide it with phrases like, all I want is for everyone to have an equal say. The majority have had their say by retaining our property laws and rejecting LS.

You may not like the current property laws, but they were legally put in place by the majority. The only people talking about changing those laws are a numerically insignificant minority. Your minority doesn't make the laws, you're going to have to get used to that idea.

Requiring a two thirds majority to change constitutions may be viewed by you as minority rule, but for many of us it protects everyone. We are all part of some minority. People of color, LGBT, religious minorities, people with different political opinions, even fringe ideas like anarchy are protected from being imposed upon and tyrannized by the mob.

One of the problems I see with libertarian socialism is the ability of a simple majority to change laws on an emotional whim, essentially mob rule. That doesn't give us freedom it gives us chaos. Things like requiring a two thirds majority to alter the constitution or override a presidential veto protect us all, minority and majority alike.

Look back at the opening comment that started this discussion. My original point was to suggest that something be done now, that has a chance of improving the lives of people alive today. To me that means working within the system we have now. Placing all our efforts into promoting libertarian socialism may be nice for people a century or two down the road, if it is successful, but it does nothing to help people today.

Working toward a libertarian-socialist system has no chance of succeeding today, next year, not a century from now, maybe never. Anarchy is a political dead end for the foreseeable future. Yes attitudes may change, but you're not going to jump from a base of less then 1% of the population to 50% in a lifetime. It's likely all the conservatives and politically right leaning independents are going to have to die off and produce only left wing progeny for a few generations. There isn't even strong support for anarchy even among the progressives. Judging by past actions, libertarian socialism has been rejected soundly by the people.

The merits of libertarian socialism are debatable. I see it as a danger to individual freedom and unworkable due to the basic nature of human beings. You disagree and we disagree on your interpretation of "evidence". I see Spain's anarchists as just another group of armed thugs imposing their will through force, you think it was a successful. We can go back and forth on our interpretation of what freedom is or isn't all day long. You seem to want everyone to have a say, but either you don't like the result of what they have said or refuse to hear them. Their actions have voted repeatedly against libertarian socialism. This brings me back to my original comment, something should be done now that has a chance of yielding benefits for the people today.

definitely general strikes would be effective. Organizing that is challenging but must be attempted. Expanding unions would be helpful. Worker profitsharing, co ownership can be effe4ctive at eliminating the obscene disparity of exec to average worker pay. So much must be done. So many obstacles. It is discouraging but I know we have to try.

Absolutley. And we must remember to think long term. Regime and power structures often take along time to change. And think about it, it hasn't even been a year yet, but look at all that has been accomplished: a now worldspread growing Occupy movement, organizing, and getting the important issues on the aganda to a larger extent. This is just the beginning

A lot of good philosophical arguments here, but what is asked for is suggestions. Rallying around people suffering from the effects of unrestrained capitalism is something that really catches my previously apathetic attention. I'd quit listening until OWS came along and showed me that people CAN be altruistic. I know, always a dab of self-interest but blah blah, it's helping someone else too. Keep pointing out and even stopping foreclosures, keep pressing the "move your money" movement. (Didn't hurt them, but the IDEA did!) Draft and support candidates who will push the "do the right thing" ideas, then keeping those ideas in front of them. Use petitions, blogs, even letters and phone calls to point out the things that are just "the right thing to do". Elizabeth Warren brought up the "you didn't do it alone" idea, which was picked up, spread, re-discussed, pointed out and now even Obama is saying it; 3 years ago you might as well have been speaking Greek. Press, unrelentingly, for the banking criminals to be prosecuted. And one thing we really need is to pressure the tools we currently do have as representatives to pass legislation on some of the items in the 99% Declaration. Don't, Don't, Don't wait for constitutional changes. Every "right thing" the legislature votes against, or the supreme court strikes down, will shine a brighter light on what they are really doing and may raise more consciousnesses. Every "right thing" that is implemented is another dollar from the 1%. You are making a huge difference.

What you don't get is that the vast majority of the 99% do not WANT anything to do with a socialist/anarchist type society. If YOU want to take over, force, or coerce the majority into something they don't want, what makes you ANY different than the current 1%?

Besides being a tad apathetic, a bit anti-intelectual, absorbed in sports spectacles,
and celebrities and "reality tv", addicted to fox and rush limbaugh, ultra-national xenophobic, preoccupied with their world.

Again, what you do not "GET" is that this has nothing to do with what you call it or how you define it. You can name your idea of a better/perfect society ANYTHING you want to. And you can define it any way that you wish to.

What you cannot do is get 99% of a population to ACCEPT and EMBRACE the exact same ideology no matter how good or wonderful you make it sound or look on paper. The historical fact is that no government, no dictator, no democracy, no country has EVER been able to make it work in the real world with real people. In the end, either a dictator arises or the majority ends up ruling because nothing would ever get done if consensus was required on every single aspect of social interaction.

gsw realizes this fact:

"Most people do not seem to be interested in politics or running of government, or getting involved in politics, organized religion, etc."

"We are a country of individualists, and we like our privacy rights, and the right to not participate."

Unfortunately, many do not vote. Then there are ignorantes, greedy bastards, and a few mentally instable. (We should awaken the masses and bring a landslide of worker-progressive and new voters, rallied around issues that they are concerned for: tax millionaires, produce jobs, people first solar panel for every home, free public education through grade 14 1st 2 years college, and rekindle a common spirit of volunteerism.)

Not that it's there fault: people are a product of their culture, and our is as shallow as it gets--buy buy buy, worship the celebrity, believe your brands and programers...in USA where we believe in myth and fairy tales..."Your free to succeed, just set your sights on the prize and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop whining."

We are blasted and consumed by a corporate media culture, bombarded by messages to consume, earn, consume, work, consume , borrow borrow, play.

Look at all the Mexican Youth who turned up at the National zocolo plaza, to express their voice in protest to votes being bought by $100. gift cards.

These Mexican youth are not as politically and culturally apathetic as Americans. My 3 kids are half-mexican by blood and do not buy into this american cultural corporate mind-dazed nationalistic, life style. They see culture of greed does not equal a superioror cultural American exceptionalistic dreamlife. More stuff is not necessarily better life.

For Mexico and here, the votes are bought by adds and empty promises.

The supreme court and politcos needs to be spanked too.

And why does college cost so much, and why do football coaches and university presidents make so much , and yet college costs are going up and up, and you really need that degree, to get a good start, but then you are in a deep debt hole. Education should be a universal human right.

It's nice to know that one can always count on mature, well reasoned, and completely un-bigoted dialogue here.

Such fine reasoning as, for example, that it is apparent that anyone such as myself, and hundreds of millions of others, who have chosen not to "opt in" to OWS yet are obviously "do nothings" that should "go away".

Or that responding to "outsider" comments in a mockery of the German language while associating US nicknames given to both German and Japanese propagandists serves to forward the movement just as much as an intelligent, logical response would have.

So tell me DKA-aside from offending me, Germans, the Japanese, and everyone else who might agree with some of your message, but not all of your methods, just exactly how do you view yourself helping this movement succeed?

Only you could be inept enough to spin your own words and end up referring to them as "subtle mind poisons".

Only you could assign a "sultry come hither voice" to the above words I posted here while AT THE SAME TIME accusing me of being a propagandist!!! (You know what that word means right?) (What about the words "irony" and "hypocrite"?)

Sorry I am not gonna go digging around in forum archives for your poison. You have a tendency to say it is futile don't do anything because you are gonna change nothing. That is what your usual message boils down to. Your comment below adds up to bear witness to the fact that you talk against doing things for people in support of people and you twist it to look like geeze these aren't my thoughts these are how the people feel. Sorry you fail - but I have to admit you are pretty intelligent in how you go about selling your BS ms. oh so popular BR (-104)

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-104) from New Hope, PA 3 hours ago

Again, what you do not "GET" is that this has nothing to do with what you call it or how you define it. You can name your idea of a better/perfect society ANYTHING you want to. And you can define it any way that you wish to.

What you cannot do is get 99% of a population to ACCEPT and EMBRACE the exact same ideology no matter how good or wonderful you make it sound or look on paper. The historical fact is that no government, no dictator, no democracy, no country has EVER been able to make it work in the real world with real people. In the end, either a dictator arises or the majority ends up ruling because nothing would ever get done if consensus was required on every single aspect of social interaction.

gsw realizes this fact:

"Most people do not seem to be interested in politics or running of government, or getting involved in politics, organized religion, etc."

"We are a country of individualists, and we like our privacy rights, and the right to not participate."
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

"You have a tendency to say it is futile don't do anything because you are gonna change nothing. That is what your usual message boils down to."

That YOU read what I write and "boil it down" to that is YOUR problem, not mine. That you cannot read something said plainly and openly without adding your own bias or reading between lines that don't exist is the behavior of a paranoid, arrogant, pseudo mind-reader.

I'm trying to get YOU and others like you to accept REALITY because you cannot CHANGE what IS into what you want it to be if you do not accept what you actually have to work with. You cannot make good, fluffy, healthy bread without the proper ingredients no matter how MUCH you want to make that bread. No matter how much everyone else wants that bread. You can kick and scream and yell and agitate all you want to-you won't get that bread in the end. But you CAN work with the ingredients you DO have to make something that might be better than what has been made in the past.

" ms. oh so popular BR (-104)"
Seriously? What is this? Jr High?

If I cared about the brownie point system here it would be easy to just spew all the crap you want to hear instead of trying to get you to use reason and logic to actually accomplish something. I have no more desire to be part of this OWS forum 1% ruling elite that has a thousand times more points than I do, than I do to be part of the US 1% ruling elite that has a thousand times more money than I do. Why would anyone???

That you cannot seem to make the mental comparison between the mentality that believes that giving other people POINTS to say/do what you want to hear/see somehow miraculously proves that those posting are credible, honest, or truthful and the mentality that believes in giving other people DOLLARS when they say/do what you want to hear/see is frightening.

You engage in propaganda while crying out against it. You treat people who don't agree with you in the exact same behavior you cry out against. You seem every bit as oblivious to your own stupidity as you claim your opponents are.

If OWS is not better than we are-no more enlightened-no more noble or just than the 99% already is now-then WHY IN THE HELL should we change anything? We've already got arrogant, hateful, oblivious, and hypocritical. Stop trying to sell us something we all have enough of thanks.

Clearly I am the one who misjudged you. You're not in any way honest or intelligent. You're just manipulative and willing to share and spread your disease. Only a sick mind would feel the need to tell me what I'm trying to say, when I actually said exactly what I meant.

Let me point out what ELSE I said:

"...because you cannot CHANGE what IS into what you want it to be if you do not accept what you actually have to work with" and "But you CAN work with the ingredients you DO have to make something that might be better than what has been made in the past."

There's a big word for this point of view. It is NOT defeatist..it is realist. Look it up.

See that is the funny thing about you. You admit that you are not a fan or a supporter of OWS or any Occupy movement of the people supporting the people for creating a better world. You say it is your right to opt out ( not a problem I agree ) but here you are advocating defeatism .... um that is not opting out - you are campaigning.

You say that you are not being negative ( or some such BS ) and that you advocate that we need to work with what we have to make a better world - Funny I have never seen you advocate to do something that would help improve our world using what we have or using anything else. No you run around being little miss negativity and figure that that is OK. Sorry epic fail it is not OK for you to be little miss negativity and run around attacking others ideas on what we need to do to save our society our environment our world - no sorry you don't get to do that.

I'm a supporter of people doing what they can to create a better world. I have zero need to mention or brag about whether or not I actively participate in other organizations and causes that are taking concrete, observable actions that actually ARE changing our political system, as well as feeding and clothing the hungry and needy on a daily basis.

I'm trying to figure out what OWS seeks to accomplish, and how they plan to accomplish that, BEFORE I invest my time and effort on their behalf. And I'm trying to inform you, whether you like it or not, that MOST people are exactly like me.

Let me clarify...most good, honest, ethical people do not merely join movements so that they can claim to be "supporting people who are FOR creating a better world" on the internet or elsewhere. They simply go out and work with organizations that are DOING the things that actually ARE making the world better today, NOW, with their own hands and their own money and their own hearts.

Ideas are only ideas. They don't become reality unless someone, somewhere does the physical, hard, every day WORK that makes them more than just ideas. Millions of good ideas come and go every day because everyone wants to have the good idea but not enough people want to actually DO them.

Slogans are slogans. Words are words. If all you plan to do is cheerlead and pep talk-good for you. If all you want to do is complain about what isn't happening, or inform people that certain things aren't happening, you're doing a bang up job. When OWS decides to actually SERVE their communities, and SOLVE problems, and BE the answers rather than just yell at everyone else...I'll be the first to advocate for them. Deal?

Nice rant. And no no deal. You talk a very nice game . But you bring nothing positive to the table. As I said you love to put down but you do not contribute anything good. So no my opinion stands and others can review your contributions/comments (?) as you make them.

Her point is valid. People often don't want what they don't understand. Unless you have a majority ready to force libertarian socialism on society you have to deal with the resistance be it through ignorance or understanding. Understanding alone doesn't always lead to acceptance either. Libertarian socialism has been around for over a century and has remained a fringe philosophy, in spite of it's popularity on university campuses.

Just another random idea: How about like Washington state has initiate referendum process. I understand some states do not allow citizen initiatives. Might ows write some state-level initiatives, focus on some particular states that have this initiative process, where citizen initiatives gather signatures, and the law goes right on the ballot, to the people and work grassroots up. You would need lawyers to write the initiative, I presume.

I would advertize that thought here and on social media for others ( aclu ? ) to consider. Make a Post and twitter it or use one or all of the other social media buttons or copy and send out to other groups that you know of. OWS is not a political movement and will not likely be doing any campaigning.

Support Move To Amend - the state by state campaign to remove corpoRAT personhood and get money out of politics.

There are a lot of campaigns going on that are aimed at making a better world through having the government work for the people for the benefit of ALL. These campaigns are also outreach to the public to unite in common cause.

I don't see money as the problem, I see it as a side effect. Money works because people in general are lazy. They don't keep themselves educated so they are easily misled by attack ads and half truths.

An amendment may work it may not, the effort and organization could just as easily be applied to recruiting candidates for Congress that are not corrupt. With that you have the option to effect more changes.

You asked what could be done - I give you one example of a campaign that is doing really well and instead of saying RIGHT-ON LET'S DO IT TO IT - you complain - so what then are your ideas to get involved and get things happening? Hhmmmmm?

I simply stated Betsy's point is valid, whether people understand anarchy or not, a vast majority are against it. It is and is likely to remain a fringe philosophy for the foreseeable future. Your comment about most people not knowing the definition of anarchism does point out one of it's flaws though. Direct democracy can only be successful if the electorate are educated.

I'm not complaining and I didn't ask what could be done. We're simply exchanging ideas. You think an amendment has a chance, I don't see it coming close to the super majority it would need. I see the way to change things as working within the system by recruiting honest people new to politics, few here agree with that.

Recruiting new people that are for the people "is" an aspect - but those new people can not be left alone to do the job - or we end up with the same mess we have today - only with new people involved.

The People need to be educated and brought into the system of governance if we are gonna see meaningful and lasting change for the better. IMO that is helped along very much by grassroots campaigns like the Move to Amend campaign.

There are a lot of actions that can be taken, making an effort to amend doesn't mean you can't run people for Congress and set a legislative agenda for change too. A clear focused agenda. You're also right to say it's necessary for the electorate to stay involved and informed. That lack of personal involvement in the process is what has created the problems we see with the system today.

The discussions around anarchy are somewhat frustrating. It's practical value as an economic and governing system is debatable. The idea has less popular support that any of the third parties that occasionally pop up. If anything I see anarchy as counterproductive to gaining any sort of grassroots support for change nationally.

Anarchy is not understood it has gotten bad press for centuries - from the ruling class. Anarchy has an awful lot in common with the idea of Republic and of Democracy. Part of moving forward is destroying misinformation that causes prejudice.

What is anarchism?

Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.

Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.

Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.

In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.

Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.

Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.

Thank you, I know what anarchy is. Your description gives some of the reasons why it's impractical to expect humanity to embrace it. Man in not egalitarian or altruistic enough to make it work. As a species we lack the maturity needed to put aside our own ego.

It requires informed participation by all members of the society. If we had that, the representative republic we have would be working well. Corruption is partly the result of society being indifferent and ignorant about government and/or corporate activity.

It may be something to aspire to, it took individuals several thousand years to realize the dream of human flight. Anarchy requires most of humanity to agree on a selfless course of action, that too may take thousands of years of social evolution. Right now what gets rewarded in life is individual self-serving action.

The majority have dreams of getting a good job, becoming well off. Goals that, no matter how unlikely, could happen in their lifetime and make the effort pay off for them. The path you ascribe to seems more likely to be of benefit to society generations down the road. It's possible to get some people interested in it but a majority are true to their evolution. Their feeling is, what's in it for me now.

You see what you want to see in Dawkins. You're application is the error. Altruism exists, there are people that are altruistic. Dawkins offers an explanation for the limited altruism we observe, especially that between family members. You wish to take the explanation turn it around and apply it to prove the unobserved altruism between all unrelated human beings. You're misapplying it. The same can be said for charity.

Sorry I don't see LS as being able to function in a complex society, your arguments are not convincing and what you call democracy I see as mob rule and could easily be a threat to individual freedom. Maybe that's why the idea has languished on the fringes of society for so long. I think most people intuitively see LS as unworkable.

"it is still a theory and while interesting it does have it's detractors."

It's both widely accepted, and also very logic.

"You're twisting Dawkins to fit your beliefs."

This is false. I'm not twisting anything. Dawkins himself refers to his work when explaining phenomena such as charity etc.

"I picked the Scandinavian countries precisely because of their excellent system of taxation and social welfare. You are probably aware then that welfare fraud has become an increasingly serious problem there."

Again, there will always be someone who cheats. It has increased somewhat, but what are you trying to say with that fact?

"It's human nature to get the most benefit for the least effort. "

That's not what humans are about. An individual who is only looking out for oneself, and only cares about personal gain would be concidered pathological. If what you're saying is true, we would not have been alive; our ancestors whould have died out. If what you're saying is true, why would humans bother to raise children let's say?

"People are learning over time that you don't have to work, not the altruistic behavior required for a successful libertarian socialist state."

You're way off. It's about hwo we organize society in terms of working conditions etc that will be essential in fighting unemployment and welfare fraud.

"Does a nation even have a libertarian socialist party (your's or mine)?"

A party that's sceptical to party-politics? That's a new one.. :)

"Do we allow things to go on as they are while we wait generations hoping society may evolve in the direction you hope for?"

No, short term goals are important as well. I'm talking about what we should strive for.

We disagree on your interpretation of Dawkins, I see it as offering an explanation for altruistic behavior among closely related individuals. It's not simply a big leap of faith to extend it to unrelated strangers, it's a misrepresentation of the theory. It certainly doesn't say that human beings have the altruism to make an LS society work.

The point of the welfare cheats is to offer an example of a growing lack of altruism in societies. It is offered as an example of slowly increasing selfishness. You may strive for whatever you want, I find some of your arguments unconvincing and others based on what I see as error. I simply don't see an LS society as workable.

Spain was in many ways a success. Most people participating were thrilled to see this new type of organization come to be, making them more in control of their own lives. It didn't last long because it was crushed by opponents. Again, there was a war going on, and there were things done by anarchists that I would not support/advocate, certainly not in a peaceful society.

"Dawkins theory has a long way to go to be proven"

You don't agree with Dawkins. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, just like the conspiracy nutcases are entltled to their opinion about 9/11.

His work is however accepted by the vast majority of biologists.

"You should work around people for awhile to see what they actually do to get the most they can out of life for the least amount of effort."

I talked about this greed we see a lot of in the article I linked to. We're incouraged to be greedy. In a classless society people would be much more soldaric and altruistic.

"Even the Scandinavian nations, that have a long and successful history of social welfare, have had a growing problem with welfare cheating."

Well, I live in Norway so I'm very familiar with the Scandinavian system. Actually in Norway we have one of the lowest unemplyment rates in Europe. There's always going to be dishonest people who cheat and don't play by the rules, but the way to counter that is not to cut the welfare but create a society in which people have decent working conditions.

"but the choice has been made over and over again."

Attitudes are not static, they can change just like they have numerous times before.

I'm not prepared to debate the degree to which Dawkins' theory is accepted, it is still a theory and while interesting it does have it's detractors. Your interpretation of it, as applying to one individual feeling a familial altruism toward a stranger, I do find fault with. You're twisting Dawkins to fit your beliefs. The selfish gene may favor altruism toward family members, not strangers.

I picked the Scandinavian countries precisely because of their excellent system of taxation and social welfare. You are probably aware then that welfare fraud has become an increasingly serious problem there. I don't remember which country it was (Sweden maybe?) that sponsored an international conference for the nations in that region on the problem of welfare fraud. They apparently see it as serious and growing.

It's human nature to get the most benefit for the least effort. Norway had over 100 people arrested in one investigation last July for welfare fraud. People are learning over time that you don't have to work, not the altruistic behavior required for a successful libertarian socialist state. Those dishonest people you mentioned demonstrate to others that you are foolish to work, slowly over time that welfare group grows in size and the attitude of entitlement becomes the norm.

Political attitudes also do change over time. There was a strong libertarian socialist movement in the early 20th century, it's fallen into obscurity. That may change again someday, or not. Talk of anarchy, however, does nothing to improve things today.

These are rhetorical questions, simply look at your own answers to them to examine how useful this quest for anarchy is for people alive and working today. Does a nation even have a libertarian socialist party (your's or mine)? What is its strength? If it is not close to a position of power then what can be done? Do we allow things to go on as they are while we wait generations hoping society may evolve in the direction you hope for?

I'm opposed to libertarian socialism for many reasons. In the context of Occupy, I see it as particularly frustrating. LS is so far from any hope of achieving even third party status as to be totally useless for any change today. To advocate for it is nice, if you're right and it actually works, for some future society, but it does nothing to help people today.

"The selfish gene speaks more to family groups not populations, again you interpret things in a way favorable to your dream. That doesn't make it the right interpretation."

The Selfish Gene presented many cases, but the point was that organisms act as if their gene is selfish; organisms who share the same genes would develop altruism and cooperation among themselves because it increases the chances of the gene being replicated. So it goes beyond the family, especially in the case of humans who are extremely genetically alike compared with other species.

About the Spanish Revolution: Like I told msStacy, this is a little beside the point. I know that there were things done by anarchists that I would not support/advocate, certainly not in a peaceful society, but the point was that a relatively large scale society based on libertarian socialist principles was established - we know it can work.

"The "wealthy" and the "poor" are not a static groups, the people in each group change a great deal."

Sure some become poor, some become rich. What's that got to do with anything?

"Even if they were static, we're back to that tyranny by the majority if you think you have the right to vote someone's property away from them, just because they have been more successful then you."

Again, like I told Stacy: Democracy means that everyone has a say in the things that affect their lives; on some issues the majority agrees with you on other issues they don't. That's how it is to live in a society with other people.

Today's property rights are not graven in stone, they can and should be changed to better ones.

"If it's shared anyone stuck with it will will screw it up or half do it"

That's not true. Why would you say that?

If I'm coerced into doing it I'll only do enough to keep myself out of trouble with the ruling committee."

You're not forced to work in a libertarian socialist society.

"Pay someone extra and you're starting on the road back to inequality."

I'm more concerned with people's needs being fulfilled, not that everyone should get exactly the same amount of goods/resourses. And paying someone a little extra for doing the shitty jobs would not make very much difference; it would still be a classless society. But I lean very much towards the anarcho-communist ideas, so the sharing-option would be my first option.

The LS society established in Spain, by force, not by the democratic consent of the people is certainly relevant. You'r holding it up as an example of success, yet it violates it's own principle of democracy. Also it didn't last long enough to say if it worked or not. They tried to ban the use of money, using death as a penalty. Then found they had to create their own script because people were taking the necessities without going to work. That shows me that a system based on altruism didn't work that well. There is no way to tell if it would have succeeded or become more repressive then the fascist state that replaced it.

Dawkins theory has a long way to go to be proven, and has as many detractors as supporters, either way the existence of a gene isn't going to change mankind in this generation, there would need to be an opportunity for that gene to be useful for survival over many future generations. I don't see any evidence that it is dominating behavior in the present population.

You should work around people for awhile to see what they actually do to get the most they can out of life for the least amount of effort. Even the Scandinavian nations, that have a long and successful history of social welfare, have had a growing problem with welfare cheating. People violating the welfare laws to get additional monies they are not entitled to. Humans care more for themselves then they do for the group.

So far a vast majority of over 99% of the people have determined that libertarian socialism would not work for them, they show no interest, beyond listing to advocates, of doing anything to actively promote it. You may wish many things for yourself or for people, but the choice has been made over and over again. The majority don't want LS. Which I think was my original point, the majority don't want anarchy, which is part of the reason why Occupy hasn't seen much growth.

"You are talking about what you believe to be true with regard to human nature, not what is true. You want the altruism there so you see it, but you're operating on faith not fact.""

Actually, if you read the article you'll find that what's presented is pretty reasonable.

"It is natural for all life to get the most individual reward for the least amount of individual effort."

So you disagree with Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" (which more or less all scientists on this field regard as correct)?

"Spain's little experiment with anarchy was 80 years ago"

That's actually strengthens my case, not yours. The fact that they were able to create this society that long ago means that we with all this new tecnology and wealth definitely can do it now.

"and although some of the groups are still politically active, they are weak with a very small following"

The forces advocating parlamentary democracy were also very weak when we had feudalism...look what happened

"When faced with opposition the anarchists resorted to tyranny and terror."

Actually it was the bolshevists and the fascist that conducted the terror. Plenty of anarchists were brutally murdered by these forces.

"If people participated in an informed way now, the republic we have would be superior to the society you propose."

If you're thinking about a society that still has a state-capitalist structure, I disagree. Capitalism - in any form - weakens democracy. Only in a libertarian socialist society will people be able to really control their own lives to the full.

"As far as choice is concerned, we have as much choice now as we are likely to have under anarchy."

Nope. In today's society a huge amount of resourses and capital is concentrated on the wealthy; the top 1% own nearly 50% of inv.capital. In a LS society the wealth would be shared among the people, giving everyone much more freedom.

"Even Chomsky admits to the reality that there are jobs no one wants to do and some choice may have to be taken away from individuals."

Libertarian Socialism offers different solutions on this issue. It can be shared, or remuneration can be given if necessary; the point is that decitions are always decided democratically by the participants. No system can let every individual do whtever they want; there must be some kind of force in any type of society.The question is how the system is organized, an I think it should be organized based on democracy - built and organized from below.

It might be a reasonable interpretation, but not the only one and only suggests that some small, less successful groups might have been less competitive then others.

The selfish gene speaks more to family groups not populations, again you interpret things in a way favorable to your dream. That doesn't make it the right interpretation.

A common defense for the indefensible, other groups murdered their opponents so we simply had to also. The anarchists in Spain held power by suppressing opposition. That isn't allowing people to control their own lives no matter how you rationalize it. They used terror and tyrannized the areas they controlled.

The "wealthy" and the "poor" are not a static groups, the people in each group change a great deal. Even if they were static, we're back to that tyranny by the majority if you think you have the right to vote someone's property away from them, just because they have been more successful then you.

Human nature will play a role in any distasteful job solution. If it's shared anyone stuck with it will will screw it up or half do it, it doesn't matter someone else will be along soon to take it over. If I'm coerced into doing it I'll only do enough to keep myself out of trouble with the ruling committee. Pay someone extra and you're starting on the road back to inequality. Besides why would I work a bad job if the majority are jealous of any extra wealth and could vote it away from me?

When it's all said and done none of the arguments matter. The anarchists today have no interest in changing the system by actually participating in it and they don't have the arms, numbers, or organization Spain had in the 1930's to capitalize on a government collapse. In their zeal for revolution they ignore the fact that police, or right wing, or military groups are much more likely to take control of a collapsed government then the isolated disorganized anarchist groups.

You are talking about what you believe to be true with regard to human nature, not what is true. You want the altruism there so you see it, but you're operating on faith not fact. Chomsky too offers only his own beliefs when discussing it. It is natural for all life to get the most individual reward for the least amount of individual effort.

Spain's little experiment with anarchy was 80 years ago and although some of the groups are still politically active, they are weak with a very small following, clearly it doesn't seem to be a movement that endeared itself to the population. Let's not forget also that the anarchists then were armed and organized, they were not voted into power. When faced with opposition the anarchists resorted to tyranny and terror. There were quite a few church burnings and murders committed in the attempt to hold power.

It's my belief that if people don't take an active part then we are simply trading one set of oppressors for another. If people participated in an informed way now, the republic we have would be superior to the society you propose.

As far as choice is concerned, we have as much choice now as we are likely to have under anarchy. Even Chomsky admits to the reality that there are jobs no one wants to do and some choice may have to be taken away from individuals.

Exactly. Thank you.
Even if it were possible to "educate, outreach, open eyes, foster critical thinking, promote awareness" the entire 99% of a given society regarding a certain philosophy or agenda, it isn't logical or even reasonable to assume that the given society (or at least an overwhelming majority of it) would naturally and willingly and enthusiastically embrace that ideology.

Critical thinkers already KNOW this. So does anyone with any common sense at all.

The majority of the 99% in the USA are taking three actions to strip the 1% from their power already. First action, Wikipidia established a system of thought without any authority; Second action, Wikileaks is breaking the credit system of the rich and powerful; The third action, occupying movement is creating an equal, open, share, direct action political system without any rank. Wiki society is replacing the pyramid social system with a horizontal one on the earth.

"I don't see them doing this violently. It seems, if even 1 person objects in their general assemblies, ideas must be reworked. All have a voice, and it is therefore respectful and democratic. All are equal. "

OWS as far as I know isn't violent and I never said that they were. My response was addressed to the point in the op of "What should be the strategies and tactics of the 99%?" Historically there has never been a society in which 99% of it's citizens have agreed upon anything and acted in consensus upon it. Asking for suggestions as if such an event has occurred already is viewed as premature and unwise to people who actually do think critically or use common sense.

"What you don't get is that the vast majority of the 99% do not WANT anything to do with a socialist/anarchist type society."

I am aware that a lot of people don't associate with anarchism. I have never disputed that. But like I've said before, the ideas of anarchism are pretty reasonable and logic: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-anarchism-is-the-way-to-go/ We need to continue to try to convince people that these ideas are just common sense.

"If YOU want to take over, force, or coerce the majority into something they don't want, what makes you ANY different than the current 1%?"

That some people believe the "ideas of anarchism are pretty reasonable and logical" does NOT mean that ALL people will even if you educate them fully on every point you find reasonable/logical. ALL people are not the same. ALL people do not want the exact same things, nor will ALL people ever agree to the exact same methods.

This country wasn't founded as a democracy. It was founded as a Republic. Because people then, like people now, cannot ever come to a consensus on everything and this means that some group, or groups area always going to "lose out" in order for anything to get accomplished on a broader scale.

A republic is a form of government in which the state is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2]

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic, which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the periods when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. An example of this is Sparta, which ha two kings but was not considered a normal monarchy as it also had ephors representing the common people. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.[3]

I don't see what your point is with this. Regime, laws and property rights etc can be changed. The fact that some (now long since dead) people a long time ago passed certain laws that eventually became integrated in the society over a long perod is not an argument to continue this. People should change the society for the better; people should create a real participatory democracy.

"Because people then, like people now, cannot ever come to a consensus on everything"

A republic is a form of government in which the state is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2]

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic, which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the periods when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. An example of this is Sparta, which ha two kings but was not considered a normal monarchy as it also had ephors representing the common people. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.[3]

Sure, and my point was that it doesn't matter what a country was "founded on" and which traditions that have been implemented. Different societies have been founded on all kinds of awful things, and has implemented all sorts of awful traditions. It's the people living today that should get to decide what kind of society they should live in.

Stacy did not include anything about "NOT being allowed" to pass a law.

"You are free to convince enough people to change our constitution. It will have to be greater then 50% plus one, this insures something closer to a consensus of all the people, which you'd have to have and maintain in order for any form of socialism to have a prayer at working. "

She's talking about how YOU would need more than a simple majority of 50% +1 to do it and claim that the change was closer to a "consensus" than just a simple majority. Maybe you just misunderstood what she was saying.

Richard Dawkins is intensely skeptical about any kind of non-adaptive evolution beyond that of the actual genes in humans. And there are plenty of evolutionary biologists "etc" that don't agree with Dawkins either. So just exactly how did you arrive at the designation that "most" of them "share these views"?

"Stacy did not include anything about "NOT being allowed" to pass a law."

She said "You are free to convince enough people to change our constitution. It will have to be greater then 50% plus one" That means that if there was a situation where 50%+1 wanted x, then that would not be enough, meaning that the minority would get their will, not majority (50%+1).

"She's talking about how YOU would need more than a simple majority of 50% +1 to do it"

Jepp, and by saying that she's advocating minority rule.

The Selfish Gene is widely accepted by scientists on the field. You will always find some scientists disagreeing with what's widely accepted - from sceintists who believe the WTC came down from controlled explosion, to climate change deniers; that doesn't make them right.

It appears that you, like so many others, believe Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" is about something that it is not. Which only indicates that you haven't actually read the book.

"In the foreword to the book's 30th-anniversary edition, Dawkins said he "can readily see that [the book's title] might give an inadequate impression of its contents" and in retrospect thinks he should have taken Tom Maschler's advice and called the book The Immortal Gene"

And perhaps you should ask Stacy to clarify what she meant for you. You obviously don't want to believe that I could possibly be right about anything-even that.

Can you think of any of our "OWS issues" that will not be fixable once this is severed? Anything?
The people will then own the government - just like we did before the Powell memo and ronnie's trickle down

for full documentation & 40+ videos from people such as Grayson, Lessig, Warren, Chomsky, Sanders, Warren:

Please read my post!
If the kochs had $50,000,000,000 and could not contribute into our political system, how would that adversely affect America?
Fox example, we could tax income & cap gains over $1,000,000 at 50%
and double the estate tax - because the 99% want to -
and they would be no more powerful than you or me!

"If the kochs had $50,000,000,000 and could not contribute into our political system, how would that adversely affect America?"

The people who have a lot of wealth and resourses have more power in the economy. The have more control and influence of investments, purchases, the stock exchange, the economic institutions/workplaces etc etc. In other words, the more money you have, the more power you have in the economy. That's pretty obvious, don't you think?

Yes. But we cannot change the wealth that someone OWNS.
We could dream about an asset tax but that will never happen.
It would be easier to invent a time machine and go back 30 years and reinstate the Eisenhower tax rates.
Eliminating special cap gains rates, doubling the estate tax, 50% on income over $1,000,000 is in the scope of possibility.
Especially if we overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood to defang the serpent.
Imagining a nearly perfect world may be a great intellectual exercise, but please don't spend your obvious intellect on the impossible.

"If the kochs had $50,000,000,000 and could not contribute into our political system, how would that adversely affect America?"

If you're talking about simply passing laws to make contributions illegal, then that is a very naive concept. Our own government has used the CIA to destroy foreign countries by flooding their economies with currency. If the Kochs wanted to control things they would do it through an underground means if they couldn't do it legally. You can't legislate your way to control power. People will find a way around things one way or another. Where do you think graft and corruption comes from? Politicians have always been bought and paid for by the rich. Nothing will change that, because the powerful rich will see to it one way or another that the status quo is maintained in order to preserve their power/wealth.

You'll have to think of something else. The wealthy did not get that way by being stupid. And they're usually one or two steps ahead of anything anyone tries to defeat them.

I don't disagree that Ralph Nader tried to fight the system, but he was also dealing a much larger portion of mis/disinformed citizens. OWS has made very clear to pretty much the entire world, who is wronging them. And people are grateful for this. Really, they are. Still though, saying something like "We should strive for a society without leaders" is not ACTUALLY true, it's your opinion.

Just because there are people who would prefer to have a system of government, doesn't mean their opinions are any less valid than yours. Part of freedom and liberty, in the first place, is not having what you want infringed upon. Starting from a libertarian/anarchist point of view, initially, restricts the freedom of those who would prefer to be governed. That means imposing your own idea of freedom is essentially oppressing another's. Whereas starting from the representative democratic point of view, opens the door for libertarian socialism to flourish as part of society. The approach seems backwards, is all I'm trying to say.

I'm sorry if my initial post came across as facetious or insulting. I was honestly just pointing out many of the statements here that have been replied to with - actually, well actually.. are not factual. Opinion's are fine to have, but opinions aren't always the truth.

The only way is to start by filling the political system and positions of political power which already exist with Occupiers who have completely steadfast values, unending courage, and incorruptible morals and ethics. Otherwise, we just play to the apathy which empowers the status quo.

Well, Ralph Nader have tried to run against the bought and payed for-parties (D&R); it didn't work that well, did it? When the system is so corrupt and business-dominated as the US elections, maybe building a growing popular movement is better.

Boycotting certain things, I agree, but it's going to take more than that to end concentration of private power. I would also suggest things like Increasing taxes substantially on the rich - make taxes more progressive, striking, and worker's takeover where support is big.

i soooo dont agree with any of occupy wall street who think taxing the rich is the answer, you see it would only work if that money somehow got passed down to us. Now do you really think, or has the government ever shared the wealth? So why would you think the same plan will have different results? Something is imbalanced however, and I believe it is too big a government. If we the people were in charge, we could put an end to the hoarding!

"i soooo dont agree with any of occupy wall street who think taxing the rich is the answer.."

In my opinion taxing the rich is an important short term goal. Not many decades ago taxes on the rich in the US were much higher than today. Also there are lots of societies (the scandinavian countries fex) that have much higher taxes on the rich than the United States

"Something is imbalanced however, and I believe it is too big a government."

The problem is that concentration of private power has gotten so big that private enterprise are powerful enough to more or less buy elections. That's the problem. Concentration of private power is tyranny. We must take the power back from the wealthy, and create a more just, egalitarian, democratic society.

"If we the people were in charge, we could put an end to the hoarding!"

Absolutely. We must take the power back from private power; we must abolish capitalism.

hmmmm, i prefer no tax on anybody. Ive sold my products to the rich, the government never buys anything from me. And yet they are one of if not the biggest consumer of us all. Trying to dance thru hoops to sell to the government only to have government regulation shut down a government contract when one is finally awarded. Im telling you Im tired of it and something has got to change.

Today Ill be claiming my cash charity in my financial statements and if the government rejects it cause i didnt give to 501c3 organizational millionaires, instead I gave to people who actually needed it. My blood is going to boil again!

When you say you want no taxes ,what you're in reality are advocating is pure private tyranny. A laissez-faire-type society means that the it is the people who sit on the wealth and resourses that have the overwhelming control in society. It would mean that huge corporations and the financial elite - who are not democratically elected - have a huge control of our economy and our lives - private tyranny

It is the financial elite, who to a large extent control the government, that are ripping you off. The richest 1% own almost 50% of inv. capital. Do you really think these guys should get tax cuts?

i think there is a grave miscommunication going on between occupy wall street followers who want the taxes raised for the rich, and those who want smaller government. Im not sure I understand your response, but this video sheds some light as to why I stand behind NO Tax,, Not a complete light, for Peter Schiff only addresses the need for less tax, I like Ron Paul am an advocate for NO TAX, and yet our government can still have plenty of wealth. But since the complexity is beyond human comprehension, yet in the constitution, "taxes are to be voluntary".

I'm afraid you've been duped, my friend. So-called Libertarianism or Laissez-faire means all power to the wealthy. In a society like that it's the ones with the great wealth that are in charge. Corporations and the financial elite controlling the economy and our lives - private tyranny. Ron Paul, Schiff and other ultra right-wingers want to give the 1% and the huge corporations major tax cuts. That's awful.

The right thing to do is to democratize the economy - more specifically, the institutions, giving people the right to control their own lives.

i believe there is validity to your point however, when peter makes his point and asks, what are you doing to help out, "how many people do you hire" when he is employing 150 people, and pays over 50% of his income to taxes, would you really want to raise it to 75%? His retaliatory response would be then he would just sell his company and fire 150 people, because why should he work for free. Id be interested in hearing your response to his comment.

If you think what I said makes sense, then I would suggest that you right away reject this awful ideology, because what I described above is what would be the core features in such a society.

"however, when peter makes his point and asks, what are you doing to help out, "how many people do you hire" when he is employing 150 people"

I don't think he should be able to have this power in the first place. Production and decition over production should be done by the people thru democratic process, not by a non-elected rich guy.

"and pays over 50% of his income to taxes"

That's way to little. This guy's a multimillionaire, he should be stripped from his power. If you believe in democracy then Schiff shouldn't have a right to have more power than you and I.

"would you really want to raise it to 75%?"

On Peter Schiff's money? Oh, much more than that:)

"then he would just sell his company and fire 150 people, because why should he work for free."

This is one of the reasons why we shouldn't leave capital in the hands of private tyrannies. If production and the resourses were in the hands of the people we wouldn't be having that problem.

Schiff just channels what Ayn Rand said 50 years ago. Nothing new. It's still the same message of total private corporate tyranny, undermining democracy - the ability for people to control their own lives.

Glad to hear you agreeing with me. Don't be fooled by these right-wing libertarians; they want to give huge tax cuts to the corporations and the financial elite. That means that power is being handed over to people who are not democratically elected, giving them huge power and control in the economy - undemocratic tyrannical hierarchy.

still i think further discussion is needed on some facts: Fact: Im one of the few in this country who are SELF RELIANT. I dont work for another person. And in my eyes, the government is my persecutor, and the corporations are providing me with cheap products so that my money goes farther, so in considering this, how can we say that corporations is the biggest enemy? Dont confuse me with the 1% I made a modest 28k last year, but i work entirely from my own home business, and provided income for 1-2 others for most the year. And now Im out to perform my labors for the rich again, and bring in a good days pay for a good days work, I will try to avoid further persecution from the government, "along the way to work" as I just paid them a thousand dollars this week and will have to pay them another 500 very soon, as both my vehiclles registration is due this monty.

One of the main principles of Libertarian Socialism is that it must be the ones who are involved and affected that should be in control. Not a very unreasonable suggestion, right? So you should be free to do what you want, but, if your actions affect more people, then they should have a say in this. Now, take a look at the structure of a corporations: it's completley top down tyranny, with all the power in the hands of a small group of people - the owners and CEOs. All the others involved (the workers) don't have a say, they must take orders from the ones at the top of the hierarchy. This also goes for the entire economy as well: The economy is run by the financial elite. This is intolerable if one likes the idea of democracy and freedom. It must be the participants and ones affected that should have a say in the things that happen in society.

Thanks - listened to one program on there where they talked about the false allegations of mittens having been fast boated. Liked it when they pointed out the fact that you can't be fast boated if the allegations are true.

The term "Swift Boat" itself refers to a class of US Navy vessel used during the Vietnam War. During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry's heroism under fire as a Swift Boat commander in Vietnam was a centerpiece of his campaign.[12] A number of Vietnam veterans who had served on Swift Boats formed a 527 organization called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (later renamed Swift Vets and POWs for Truth or SVPT) with the intent of speciously discrediting his military record and attacking his subsequent antiwar activities as a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.[9] The group produced a series of television ads and a bestselling book, Unfit for Command. The unsubstantiated charges against Kerry by the SVPT gave rise to the term "swiftboating" as a synonym for "the nastiest of GOP campaign smears", "a slimy political attack", and, for many, "ugly, unprincipled RW slander.

True "wealth" is constituted by fertile land ; pure water ; clean air ; healthy food ; caring relationships ; healthy, happy children ; quality education and health care ; fulfilling opportunities for service ; peace and perhaps even time for meditation and spiritual reflection.

These are just a few among the many forms of 'Real Wealth', which we should properly expect a sound economy to contribute to - but Wall Street has so seriously corrupted the very language - that it is now difficult even to express the crucial distinctions between money (which is a facilitator of actual economic activity) & 'Real Wealth' (the purposes of economic activity).

Financial commentators will routinely use terms like wealth, capital, resources & assets when referring to the 'phantom wealth of financial assets', which makes them sound like something real, substantial and tangible - whether or not they are backed by anything of real value. Similarly, they identify folks engaged in market speculation and manipulation as investors, thus glossing over the distinction between those who game the system to expropriate wealth and those who contribute to its creation.

For far too long, Americans have allowed Wall Street to play them as 'marks' in a confidence scam of audacious proportions. Then they wonder at their seeming utter powerlessness to deal with job loss, depressed wages, mortgage foreclosures, political corruption and the plight of their children as they graduate into Debt Bondage.

OWS has focused national and global attention on the source of the problem. Now it’s time for action to bust the Wall Street banking corporations, cartels and trusts, 'replace the current Wall Street 'banking system' with a 'Main Street Banking System' and take back America from the rule by 'The Evil, Wall Street Bankster Parasites'.

Fortunately, with the help of 'OWS' - Americans are slowly waking up to an important truth - that it is an extremely bad idea to yield control of the issuance and allocation of credit (money) to Wall Street banks run by con artists who operate beyond the reach of public accountability and who view the rest of us as simple-minded marks ripe for the exploiting.

I hope for 'class conciousness' and the same realisation as Warren Buffet - who concluded & asserted that the only "Class War" was beingn fought and won - by his class, The 0.01% 'Elite' ( = Parasites) !!!

We need a complete change to the nation's ethos to make that happen fully, a complete cultural overhaul. That is the ultimate goal of OWS, I think, to change the way people see the world, to get them to quit lionizing corporations and wealthy people and create a society and economy that works for all people.

In practical terms, getting money out of politics, reinstating Glass Steagall and focusing on workers' rights are a few places where real change could make a difference.

We have that at the state level and it was well intended. However, state legislators set up two pieces of legislation that became constitutional amendments.resulting in a ratchet that is starving the schools. So the people "fixed" it by passing another amendment that mandates school funding. The constitution contains the one subject rule. The legislature can't seem to fix the problem with one subject. The people can seem to do it either. The state supreme court tells the legislature that the net of these amendments are unconstitutional, therefore fix it.

Well intended, the two latest amendments were not a good way to fix it and they made it too complicated. The first one should have been simply repealed. My point is that seemingly simple statutes can make things so complicated that the people in their justified distrust of the legislature can't understand a proposed solution well enough to vote for it.

Absolutely - I think there is more to it - a conscious effort to foul the process. But now this MOVE to Amend campaign ( state by state ) to remove corpoRAT personhood may be the key to start unlocking some doors.

Clearly the original politician who drafted and proposed the first one (said any tax increase had to pass a referendum) was intending mischief (He just did a jail stint for converting campaign funds to personal use) and I am sure that some involved in the second one (ratcheted down property taxes without offsetting business property tax commensurately). The third one was grassroots driven which required school funding to be indexed to inflation and equal per student.

I applaud any attempt to get the money out of governance, including elections, as long as they don't dislocate or dilute the total effort.

Oh, now I get you. I missed it in my list. I guess, but if we got rid of money in politics that'd hopefully go bye bye as well. Maybe, instead of being spread out too thin, it'd be best to just focus on a few things?

There's a lot of convincing that has to be done, yes, I agree. A major factor in succeeding to make radical changes and creating a free, jsut society is to talk to and try to convince people to join the cause.

I'm not a huge fan of petitions, but this one from Al Franken and Sherrod Brown has merit. It's focus is to overturn Citizens United which is really step one to creating any kind of meaningful change in this country:

Well, a couple of down-votes is just a minor detail. As we all know there are some trolls etc here that are only interested in acting like douchebags and provoke. Just ignore them. It's the more important issues like when opponents are trying to silence the Occupy Movement, use police violence etc we must focus on. And when these things happen, then that just means we're on the right track. As Chomsky once said:

"What you should do is exactly the kinds of things that are going to lead to hysteria among privileged and powerful people"

Well, remember that this is just the beginning of the Occupy Movement. The bigger it grows the more it threathens the status quo, hence the people currently in charge, so the real hysteria has yet to come. If one should call policeviolence towards peaceful protesters, pepperspraying peaceful girls, destroying ows-libraries etc etc hysteria can probably be debated, but it's an indication that the current power-structures to some degree at least look at ows and its potential as a threat.

The problem is not professional pols being there too long.
I would give Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren a lifetime term
The problem is the way they get money from the 1%
FDR had a lifetime term - wasn't that awful!

During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000 ($16 million 2007 dollars).
Under Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, top tax rates were reduced in 1921, 1924, 1926, and 1928. Mellon argued that lower rates would spur economic growth.[31] By 1928, the top rate was scaled down to 24% and the income threshold for paying this rate fell to $100,000 ($1 million 2007 dollars).
During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.
Since 1964, the threshold for paying top income tax rate has generally been between $200,000 and $400,000. The one exception is the period from 1982–1992 when the top income tax brackets were removed and incomes above around $100,000 (varies by year) paid the top rate. From 1981 until 1986 the top marginal rate was lowered to 50%. From 1988–1990, the threshold for paying the top rate was even lower, with incomes above $29,750 to $32,450 ($51,000 in 2007 dollars) paying the top rate of 28% in those years.[32]

Top marginal income tax rates from 1913 to 2011.
Top tax rates were increased in 1992 and 1994, culminating in a 39.6% top individual rate applicable to all classes of income.
Top individual tax rates were lowered in 2004 to 35% and tax rates on dividends and capital gains lowered to 15%, with the Bush administration claiming lower rates would spur economic growth.

and I recall someone attributed to "Warren Buffet a statement recently to the effect : " enact a law that if any congress has a deficit of 3 percent of GDP, none of that congress can get reelected." I'll try to pin that one down.

Revolutions can be peaceful. But if we came in a situation where the vast majority were in favor of implementing a more free and just society, and the 1% tried to fight this with violence, then I would be in favor of self defense (violent if necessary).

Start buying gold and silver or bitcoins for christsake, as money. Break the cartels. The currency reset is coming. This theft can only take place with a government forced currency system. The rest will follow.

It is well enough that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. Henry Ford

From reading this post...it is amazing how unrealistic life has become for everyone!

Now, I picture in my mind a city without lights, without power, without running water, or even fresh water.

I see stores closed, with National Guards in front of them to keep out the looters.

I see a curfew set, where everyone must be off the streets at a certain hour.

I see people trying to break into homes, for food, for shelter, for anything to survive, killing, raping, murdering because of their forced conditions (whether by nature or man made, it really doesn't matter!).

I see a place where the enemy is us, attacking one another because we are scared, hungry, cold, or just plain mean from the shyt going on.

What I don't see is anyone looking up what a "republic" should be, or what "anarchy" means, or what constitutes the proper political way to govern a people. Now, the powers that be are only interested in controlling the people!

Perhaps, you all aren't watching the news....Goggle RT America!

Better yet, revisit New Orleans and Katrina.

There are many ways that nations are going to be destroyed.. I doubt the powers that be don't already know this and truly don't give a damn as long as they are able to remain in control! Don't you get it?

Here's my point....this is unrealistic.... "Many who are part of the Occupy Movement would like to see a libertarian socialist / anarchist-type society based on workplace democracy and community control established sometime in the future; a society where the people have taken the power back from the financial elite....."
The idea that power belongs to the financial elite is just that...and idea, an illusion. These "elites" are trying to find ways to save themselves, on the backs of the masses, even if it means annihilating a couple of million or so! Life of others mean nothing to them, only their own!
If the masses of people truly wanted their "alleged" freedoms, it could be done in the blink of an eye, with no bloodshed, no anarchy, no raising of weapons.
Unfortunately, this country remains divided with imaginary idealisms and the people are unaware of their own inner strength and initiatives to stop this madness.
No one is going to step in and save them....just like KATRINA and any other country, as I stated, that is being ravaged by war, disease, or nature!!!

Not one living human being wants to face the reality of his or her life on this earth..It means nothing to no one but yourself!

See that key word...If enough people were "CONVINCED". Therein lies the problem, people are apathetic to all that takes place in this country unless it affects them personally...and then...only then do a small few get up enough courage to do something about it.
Now, the reality is...how are the masses going to be convinced enough to commit to a cause?
Count them on your fingers, yet those who are affected are many!

Funny thing. 60,000+ people gathered two weeks ago to learn, listen, organize for three days and and spent one entire day voluntarily serving in over 300 service projects in the Dallas area. But the media ignored it. Why? Because it involved conservatives and Tea Partiers doing good...waking up.....standing together.

Should make you wonder about what else they are doing that isn't being covered by the media...

That's fine my lovely "Daughter of the American Revolution". but 60,000 people ain't helping those who are dying, starving, losing their homes or continuing to stand in line for jobs while your secret counterparts do their fake ass media war jockying over in the Middle East......now does it?
Don't start with me girlie, I know who your mom and pops are....
Do you really want to go there?

It must be done. This state-capitalist system isn't sustainable. We need to convince, not just those who are currently not politically engaged, but we must also convince this socalled libertarian movement (the Ron Paul crew etc) that they've been duped, and convince them that creating a more democratic society is the way to go.

Well, I don't disagree, but I, once again, have always been a realist.
Sometimes, it takes a more powerful convincing than we can muster.
But rest assured, I hope all will try to do their share in the meantime.

The best tactic is to get everyone on board. Although since this isn't possible all the time, for such times, the other way would be simpler: take it from the rich and give it to the poor. In english: increase taxation over "wealthy". If this does not work (Because they "wealthy" don't pay their taxes, or end up paying taxes representing too small way of life sacrifices compared to the rest of non-wealthy population), in that case and if you are aware of law rules and risks, you could try "direct redistribution" of wealth by "visiting" wealthy people in the country. But beware no one likes "unwated visitors". I for sure would not but that is up to you... OR... start a revolution forcing lobby groups to disclose their contributions and main contributers, the same goes for senate/congress members "donations"... Or, just stick with the status quo of getting a life/job and wait all dust settles...

My tiny brain cannot answer in big ways and so I contribute whatever I can.

Continue the movement

More boycotting of products and services

Create local schools to train up boys and girls to do everything in DIY way.

I (from India) still have a large number of DIY books of USA origin that proves once USA had basement workshops almost in every home. The basements unitedly created the big USA. The DIY culture is long gone and so is life. Modern education is not only expensive but also creates laborers under fancy titles. As I understand, the average USA citizen wants very little--steady job, good home and happy life. That is the real knowledge of life--the movement makes it clear that the Spirit of life is not dead in USA.

Get the word out.on the top ten issues with a Ows flyer which is also a post to this site and introduces newbies to Ows site, top ten issues, and some educational informative links or threads: I'm thinking like a flyer, such s could be passed out at cultural events, fairs, etc. someone who is good with tech communication etc, and some simple things, petition links etc, to keep an eye on the 1 percent and this cause.

Great Video clip I am gonna forward this one to Occupy Minnesota as well as tweet it. Thanks SFF80.

Take Back Your Homes People - The Government does not seem to anxious to help. But one woman in office made a great comment they need to have the mortgage to foreclose on your Home - Tell-Em SHOW ME THE MORTGAGE.

Good to hear, my friend. Everybody contributing with thoughts, ideas, links, videos, articles etc etc and helping each other spread it out to more people is an important factor in building a great popular movement.

YEP - I am all for that - I thought of tweeting directly to Occupy Minnesota as well as doing my normal general tweet as Occupy Minnesota has a movement going resisting illegal foreclosure. Everyone should share/circulate this material and material like it out on social media - as everyone has different people and groups that they associate with. Same with circulating/sharing petitions and campaigns. OWS is not a political movement but that does not mean that supporters can not share action or education opportunities with others.

Do not go to any more stores for clothing, household goods, hair products, bath products, food, paper, plastic, etc,

Talk to your neighbors and see if they have something you can barter for or exchange with you to sustain your lives.

Last but not least, stop going to work, don't put your money in the bank, and whatever you do do not purchase anything that costs more than $1,000, i.e. cars, homes, boats, luxury items, or anything that Wall Street trades!

Now, that you have looked at everything realistically, and understand why they (the 1%) control your lives and your minds...you will realize why an uprising without your blood being shed is unrealistic.
They will never let you get a way with it!!
They need your slave mentalities to maintain their systematic control over everything required in life....(or so we are led to believe!)

Makes me wonder how the Ancients maintained such opulent civilizations without all these modern inventions from mankind.

There were a couple of reasonable suggestions here I think, but I don't think that returning our Ipods fex is going to make much difference. "Don't go to work?" Well, a lot of people depend on their income, but increased boycott on products made by the powerful corporations I can agree with.

Yes, but as I was trying to point out...the fact is... the masses rely upon the 1% to exist. Those who have been independent in their thinking, their ability to create their own livelihoods with individual effort and sustainability are the very, very fortunate ones and pretty small in number, comparatively speaking.
The masses have not been educated, or trained to be other than what they are in this day and age, consumers, purchasers, complainers, not producers or creators for themselves, their families, their communities.
So, pretty much everyone is shyt out of luck unless they do a 180' turn around in their ability to create and be productive as was the case before the industrial revolution.
What will everyone do if the Grid shuts down, for a month, 6 months, a year? Did ya.ever think Katrina could happen?
What about India, China, Japan?
Think people!
Does the universe favor us more than they do them?
Hmmm?

pushing for better working conditions, higher taxas on the rich, organizing strikes, and eventually workers' takeover etc are things I'm strongly in favor of. These things will gradually decrease the power of the 1%.

But I agree that building certain things from scratch, and creating communities that to a large extent can boycott existing private power can also be effective.

I truly understand, but no one is giving a viable solution that is probable.
It is easy to sit here, enter ideas on a keyboard giving rhetoric to what could, should, might be.
Yet, does anyone really understand at what cost?
The dream world created is slowly fading. The 1% are prepared to stand ground. Is OW, or anyone else able to do that realistically?
Does anyone, anybody, anywhere in this land understand what we are truly up against and what is about to take place here?
NOPE!!!

We are the nation that always says....Oh, I never thought it could happen here! They all seemed like such nice people"

No one is gonna do a damn thing to change anything here, ever, without people shedding their blood, or being trampled in the streets by the authorities (militia for the 1%) for trying to change this system.
That is the law of this land! It has always been that way.
All I am saying is, take off the rose colored glasses!

Something has to be done, because the current state-capitalist society is not sustainable. With increased popular uprisng both in Europe and US against the neoliberal policies I think what we're witnessing is the beginning of the end of capitalism. But It's going to take time to abolish such a well established system. The Occupy Movement has existed for a less than a year, this is just the beginning.

If we don't dismantle this current system, we will eventually end the possibily for decent human life. The capitalist system exploits humans and natural resourses; the gap between rich and poor increases not just in america, but also globally; the destruction of the environment is gettting more and more serious. This is not sustainable. I don't know when this system is going to collapse, but It will collapse sooner or later. I believe this is the beginning of the end.

1) because an individual needs no indoctrination nor dogma in order to learn how to use his mind, abolish the Department of Education;

2) because no one has the right to tell you or me what we can use as money, repeal Federal Legal Tender Laws;

3) because the Federal Government is no longer subservient to the people but is only beholden to special interests and to its members' lust for control; repeal the 17th Amendment;

4) because the Federal Government has grown in collusion with the money elite to the monstrous institution that it is by "legalized" looting of the people, repeal the 16th Amendment and repeal the Federal Reserve Act; and finally,

5) because there can be no doubt about the proper role of government in our lives, repeal the Patriot Act.

shooz, You have a start. Work to repeal the Patriot Act. But, you'll have little chance making it stick without educated people all around to preserve it, without rallying local representatives to the cause, or without abolishing the counterfeit money giving the 1% and government the wherewithal to bring it up in the first place.

shooz, I do think outside the box of central banking and its 100 years of monetary chaos in the Country. But I took a different direction than Mitchell. He certainly stepped outside the box too but clearly he stepped right inside the four walls of an asylum. Why doesn't Mitchell take the lunacy even further on the premise that if the national sovereign government has such a power over money, then why have money at all. The King could simply waive his scepter and bypass it altogether. Just as gold was abandoned, who would need such an artifact as fractional reserve money. With such governmental power and another waive of his Mightiness's scepter, the King could wish into being all the consumer goods and consumer services that all his subjects could ever want. Mitchell's "Monetary Sovereignty" reminds me of Film when Mel Brooks said, "It's good to be the King." Mel is a funny, funny man, a great comedian. Mitchell is just a moron.

Let me net it out. I am not dependent on the thoughts and actions of others to arrive at my conclusion that any society that denies me my choice to live the way that I want is wrong. Nor am I dependent on others to conclude that any ethics that prescribes that I short change myself so that others prosper is wrong. I've concluded simply that both viewpoints are retarded. I came to that by looking around and thinking about what I saw going on. Asking myself along the way the simple question, Why?, was very helpful. As to your comment on thinking well inside the corporate box, I arrived at my conclusions early in life and before I had any concept of a corporation. In terms of directions that I take, I am not measuring their worth on whether they are different; I am measuring their worth on whether they are true.

Let's discontinue the dialogue altogether because you are not willing to explore a dialogue unless you can associate my ideas to someone else's and then attack my ideas by attacking those others. That's not my idea of a meaningful dialogue because my ideas do matter to me.

Here's a summary of the article. The Author, Warren Mosler, is an apologist for and advocate of the mass scale looting of the 99% called Fiat Money. In the article's Statement of Purpose he writes, "This is not an effort to change the financial system. It is an effort to provide insight into the fiat monetary system, a very effective system that is currently in place."

Even though huge numbers of writers and academics support it and argue over how to use it better, theft is theft. Their voluminous bullshit to the contrary can't change that.

Many other people look at the issue this way. Fact: Money proper isn't created by Government and it's not created by a Bank. Money proper is created by productive people who want to buy and sell their goods and services instead of bartering back and forth. But for the laws invariably created by the 1%, all of us have to use their fiat money or we won't be able to buy and sell. If we weren't forced to use fiat money as money, what would we choose for money and why? Fact: If not forced to use it, free people wouldn't choose the federal reserve note (or any variation of it) for their money.

I suspect Shooz, in offering up the Article along with his comments about better and smarter, is thinking that being forced to use counterfeit would be better for him if only he could be smarter about how to tap into the booty. Here I thought from reading his posts that he was one of us.

As a libertarian socialist, you have to deny the freedom of some so that others can live. In order for you to foist that on me, you either have to persuade me to be a dupe or force me to be one. So far, you've been taking the tact of persuasion. But when someone like me says to you, "No, giving up my property for the benefit of society is morally wrong and I'll fight you if you try to force me.", what will you do then?

The 1%, meaning the real bad guys, are not the same as me. They have no moral grounds to defend themselves because they don't have property. They stole what they have from everyone else by forcing their counterfeiting scheme on us. We have every right to have them arrested, tried and fried. But try getting that done in the house that they built and you'll be arrested, instead. They have to be dealt with politically. I am proposing to abolish their scheme by rallying to repeal the lawless "laws" that brought it into existence. If you want to pick a fight, pick it with them and their apologists. Your energies and talent for writing poured into restoring sound money will do more for freedom than advocating a social system that depends on denying it.

Denying the freedom of some so that others can live is what is happening now but such denial is exactly why (I hope) we are all protesting. The 1% are masters at denying freedom and are so accomplished that they have the 99% by the throat. Whether by crony laws which threaten it or through actual physical force, denying an individual's liberty doesn't work because such force thwarts the person's attempts to living as he chooses. Whatever we name the system of the 1% or whatever they want to call it is irrelevant. It is a system, it does depend on force and it hurts all of us. But to insert in its place some other system which like theirs relies on forcing some for the benefit of others is unjust. The only justification for force in society is to retaliate against those who start the aggression. With that and only that, justice is served.

We have heard the politicians say that they love a good crisis because they can appeal to more voters because more people are afraid. I am hopeful that we in this movement take interest in their observations not because we can replace one system of depredations with yet another. But rather, we can advance what it means to be truly human and truly free.

Evasive? In your reply, you quoted me as saying, "you have to deny the freedom of some so that others can live. In order for you to foist that on me, you either have to persuade me to be a dupe or force me to be one."

Then you said, "That's how it works now. So what's the difference?"

I am not evading anything. I trying to understand what you asking me. Care to rephrase your question?

I understand what you're pointing out. Thanks for rephrasing. Hardly evading, I am choosing to go to the corporation in the US that has the most blame. I believe that knowingly or simply by gut feel most in the movement decided to occupy Wall St because we identified the worst of the culprits. It is the central bank and the monetary system that it forced on us. I believe that especially in the US, government didn't corrupt business. Rather, some businesses corrupted the government. The Federal Reserve tops my list as the worst because there is nothing more important to a civilized economy than money. They have forced their way into controlling it and feeding from their teat, some corporations have engorged themselves and while growing up these corporations have and will defend their "mother land".

Most of us in the Country have been so living with the effects of this corruption that we take it for granted. But I believe that OWS has not. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath, I am saying concentrate our energies on restoring sound money because that will recharge individual liberty and prosperity. Some of us in the movement believe that the issue is narrowed to one alternative. That is resting control of the monetary system from the elite and putting it into the hands of the Government. To me that is a calamity no different than what we have today.

To elaborate on your point that things have been going on for so long that people don't even notice anymore, I'll say this. Many people don't recognize that money is the necessity of individuals producing goods and services who want to exchange them with others doing the same. That is why it is created; that is who creates it. But they take other people's word for it that they themselves can't produce money and believe that it is the "job" of the banks in cooperation with the government to do that. No Government can step in and do that for us either in collusion with central banks or separate from them. Government's proper role is to protect us in our being productive.

The issue really is what money will we choose for our buying and selling. Today, we are forced into accepting federal reserve bank notes. I say eliminate that compulsion by repealing the Legal Tender Laws. Today, we are forced to grow the political power of the Federal Government instead of enjoying just representation. I say eliminate that compulsion by repealing the 17th Amendment and the 16th Amendments. Today, we are forced to deny how money is truly created and properly used. I say eliminate that compulsion by repealing the Federal Reserve Act.

Instead of dusting off ancient social ideas that pretend to uplift the majority to political power and thereby create nirvana for all through the will of the people, I say first evaluate and understand a new and relatively unchosen approach to living. That is, uphold yourself as your purpose for living. That idea is an ideal but it is rooted in something that competing ideologies don't have; that idea is true. You'll come to know that the only way to live your life as you choose in a society is to ban coercion in your relationships with others and in their relationships with you. Free from the aggression of others, you (and everyone else) will be able to go after what it is that is important to you. And it is that freedom that demands of you the political insistence for limited government, a government purposely constrained by you to protecting your actions with others. Extending that idea of living and of a proper government across the culture will be the fastest path to heaven on earth and well worth the struggle.

"As a libertarian socialist, you have to deny the freedom of some so that others can live"

You're way off. I want everyone to have the freedom to control their own lives, but (unlike you?) I want people to have a say in the things they're a part of and affected by. Current property rights are not graven in stone, they can be changed to better ones. We have such enormous wealth, we should share it.

"But when someone like me says to you, "No, giving up my property for the benefit of society is morally wrong and I'll fight you if you try to force me.", what will you do then?"

That's your choice, but if you won't accept the will of the people - (which has to be there) and decide to fight it, then the democratic society must defend themselves against you.

“In an unregulated capitalist society you don’t get to intervene in my affairs and vice versa”

This has no root in reality. The economy is all-encompassing. We live in a complex, highly developed, technological society with all kinds of endless networks of economic relations, decisions, transactions etc, that affect the economy we're all a part of in all kinds of different ways.

There are different kinds of “affairs”; some that only affect you, and the ones that affect others. What you do in your personal life; which color you decide to use when you paint the walls in your living room, or what you do in the bedroom etc, things that don’t affect other people, that’s totally up to you, and is your decision alone. On the other hand, if you choose to make decisions that affect other people in your community or the national economy, for example by being in control of a huge corporation that’s a big part of the economy, and is the workplace of lots of people, well then that’s something completely different. If you make decisions that affect other people, well then you have to expect that the ones affected will intervene in these affairs.

The same of course applies to the common "If you like anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism so much, why don’t you and your friends start your own commune somewhere and leave me out”

Well, creating solidaric communes and co-ops etc, is an important task that should be prioritized, but the argument above does not hold up. Again, the economy is all-encompassing; a couple of anarchist communes or co-ops here and there doesn’t change the fact that the super-wealthy financial elite have the overwhelming power in society.

When it comes to the economy we’re not, as individuals, living in an isolated bubble of some kind, just “minding our own business”. On the contrary; when it comes to the economy we’re all in the same boat. The economy is all-encompassing and affects us all.

Does a person pay the Waiter after eating lunch or walk out with a simple, "Thank you very much."? Does the Deli Owner pay the Waiter for a week's work or pat his rump and say, "See you tomorrow."? You say because there are decisions that people make that affect other people that I should expect that the ones affected will intervene in these affairs. Well, you're damn right! I would expect that the Deli Owner ought to call the cops on the stiff and while they are there, the Waiter ought to file two reports against the Deli Owner.

On a larger scale, Steve Jobs made decisions about creating a company of individuals to build products and sell them, decisions, I dare say, which affected you, but certainly millions of people. Should I expect an intervention from all the people affected by him? On a colossal scale, J.P. Morgan made decisions about creating a company of individuals to monopolize money and found other individuals in government who decided to protect the monopoly by law, decisions which I know affect you, your affairs and the affairs of 99% of us the world over. What intervention should I expect from others because of those decisions?

Here's my point. All of us have to see the distinction between people whose decisions are right and people whose decisions are wrong and to discern when and what intervention is appropriate. The economy is a bunch of individuals making decisions and instead of looking at it as an all encompassing morass, we should be prepared to celebrate those making the right decisions and denounce those that aren't.

Except for fascism, what you are describing is no different than what has been described and practiced in each variation of collectivism. The "say" that you want for members of your social system, is no different than a demand of pirates. To make your struggle work, you'll necessarily have to destroy voluntary cooperation among individuals. That is not a struggle toward freedom; it is the abolition of freedom.

Are there corporations the world over that have denied freedom? Most certainly there are just as there are governments the world over doing the same. Justice demands that they be judged. But where in your system is the standard of justice? What I see is that your standard is not based on the individual but the group and as such you'll be no different the than corporations (and governments) that you rail against. Like them, you're taking human nature and its potential to the level of pack wolves.

A main point with anarchism is to make decitions in soceity more volunatry. A capitalist society has nothing to do with voluntarism.

Excerpt from "Debunking libertarian myths"

Myth #1:

“Only in an unregulated capitalist economy, we'll have a truly free marked”

The marked in this kind of economy is not in any way free.

The way things function in a non-regulated capitalist society (like all others) is that the more resources and wealth you have, the more power you have. So in this kind of society it is the big corporations and the financial elite who overwhelmingly are in charge of the economy and marked (very similar to today's actual society). They control the resources, the economic institutions, and the means of production. In other words: They have an overwhelming power over the economy and the marked as a whole.

Not only do the rich and powerful (in an undemocratic way) control the economy as a whole in huge networks of transactions, investments and stock exchange, they also rule the institutions in this kind of society in a totalitarian way. The economic institutions in a capitalist society have a totalitarian model: a tyrannical non-democratic hierarchy in which the people at the top - the CEOs, owners etc - dictate how the institution is being run, what’s being produced, working conditions and so on, while people further down the hierarchy must follow their orders - a non-democratic hierarchy with control and power in the hands of the ones at the top. Capitalist institutions are in other words private tyrannies

A society that is organized in a way that allows a little minority of super-wealthy individuals and totalitarian and powerful corporations to have the overwhelming control in society and the marked, is not free trade; on the contrary, that’s command economy and private tyranny.

”In an unregulated capitalist marked, people voluntarily associate and trade with each other”

Agreements taking place in this kind of system are far from being voluntary. In a capitalist class society, you have some people with huge wealth and recourses, and others with very few or no wealth and resources. It’s of course meaningless to talk about “voluntary agreements” in such a society because the ones owning the recourses, the wealth and the means of production etc, have much more power in society. That includes of course that they have the advantage and overwhelming power in a job hiring, negotiations and so on. So the non-owners - the workers - are trapped in a society in which they, in order to have a decent life or necessities in order to survive, must sell their labor to people who have much more power than they. This has very little to do with voluntary agreements, rather it’s submission to necessities.

So in a capitalist society, we have a system in which some people, because of their wealth and ownership, have an overwhelming power in society, including in the labor marked. The owners - the employers - then have much more influence and power when contracts and agreements are being made, whether it’s in relation to working conditions, salaries etc. etc.

"What I see is that your standard is not based on the individual but the group"

Not quite right. My standard is based on individual and group. Libertarian Socialism combines collective and individual rights perfectly.

The ideal capitalist society has everything to do with voluntary cooperation. What we have today is far from the ideal. But so what? In your recognizing the bullshit being proffered in supporting their ways you have chosen to tear down the way that it is. I am all for that but, like I pointed out earlier, be prepared with a system to put in its place, one that enshrines and protects individual voluntary cooperation. I am suggesting to walk back the "laws" that brought us to where we are, namely the ones that I started the dialogue with in the first place.

But other than shooz's agreement on #5 and his dismissal of the first 4, I've heard nothing about them. Would you support repealing the 16th Amendment? Why? Why not?

First of all, I am not an american, nor am I a big fan of constitutions in general, so I haven't studied the US constitution that much. I understand that it has something to do with income tax, and I'll answer on a more general matter: Income tax is in our existing society important because if it's made progressive it can be an important tool for spreading the wealth around and making a society more equal. So I say Increase income tax for the rich, and decrease income tax for poor and working class people.

Thanks for the bit on Chomsky. I can discuss ideas back in forth (as we have been doing). As to your comment on income tax in an existing society, I wasn't going there but instead going to the idea of abolishing income tax in society. Thoughts?

"existing society versus the new society- you commented on your idea of taxation in the existing society. My Q asks about funding government in a Libertarian Society"

Ok. You only wrote "society" not "libertarian socialist society" but ok.

Well, a libertarian socialist society would, like I've said before, be a classless society (without government) where people were in direct control of their work and affairs. It would be up to the democratically run communities to decide details on how wealth and resourses were distributed, what should be prioritized in terms of production and services. So as you can understand this is a very different way of organizing than today's America lets say; it's a system in which the resourses were in the hands of the participants and where focus on money etc was much less needed.

If CES is established, what happens to the workforce of corporations when all of the people laid off from corporations find self-employment through CES? What further happens to the corporate workforce year after year when high school and college graduates seek to enter the job market and have an alternative to the insecure employment with corporations? What happens to the profits and wealth of the corporate shareholders as a result?

What happens over time when non-corporate candidates who sign FreeDA are collectively funded through CES to have enough political advertising to show voters the alternative to corporate bought politicians?

And what happens to the laws in this country pertaining to corporations when FreeDA signers are actually elected to office as a majority and enact FreeDA laws?

In short, if CES can be successful, what happens to the corporations and the wealth of the 1% derived from them?

If we got rid of monopolies completely everyone could own a business and in effect you will have a barter society instead of an ownership society. Everyone can sustain themselves instead of working only to sustain someone else. Red tape and corruption preventing entrepreneurship was found to be the common denominator in all third world nations. Wall Street is fixing the market so they are the only market in ways that are just evil - from patenting certain genes like the breast cancer gene so only they can do research and then leasing out the rights to universities and companies. Even patenting seeds or genetically modifying them with a suicide gene that prevents seed so farmers must re-buy seed each growing season. It's gotten really ugly and disgusting . The ways that companies are forcing people to become reliant. They all need to be dis-banded. We as citizens have the right to disband monopolies and those stifling innovation and creating a system where we are forced to be reliant upon a few monopolies who only seek to use and discard us for their own personal gain - being reliant on those who would use and mistreat us - is this a democracy? I don't want to have an abusive relationship with my cable company or my HMO or my employers, or my food - but I have so little choice in the matter I mean - "I can go live in the woods and eat human hair if I don't like it - right?" Is that a choice? Really?

I stand with the 99 percent. (politically I am from a divided household who meets in the middle on the issue of freedom being sold to the highest bidder) It is a fact neither side can deny, nor can we deny the culpability of every member of congress and government. This issue is all that matters for the future of our nation. Freedom is being bought and we are being sold. I was not born to be a slave, I was born in a democracy and i should have the opportunity for upward mobility as should we all. We will never submit. Corporations are too big, have too much power, and need to be disbanded. An entity claiming person hood which bares no accountability for its actions is dangerous to every citizen and is a danger to democracy.

"If we got rid of monopolies completely everyone could own a business and in effect you will have a barter society instead of an ownership society."

If everyone "owns" a business, it's an "ownership society".

And what about those "businesses" that create/sell stuff that no one wants or needs, or very few people want or need? How do those people sustain themselves?

" I don't want to have an abusive relationship with my cable company or my HMO or my employers, or my food - but I have so little choice in the matter I mean - "I can go live in the woods and eat human hair if I don't like it - right?" Is that a choice? Really?"

No one I know personally has an abusive relationship with their cable company, their HMO, their employers, or their food and yet miraculously, NONE of them live in the woods and eat human hair either!! How on earth is that possible when according to you....they have so little choice in the matter that it must be one or the other????

Are you getting caught up in semantics? Where is the ability for independent or inquisitive thought processes? You made it through this far in life this way ? I can only believe you have been helicoptered and lead a very sheltered life. The fact that you don't realize you're being taken advantage by all of the companies I mentioned above - really demonstrates it. Very wealthy people don't have to chose between these things or eating or rent. My point which you clearly missed is that all of these industries are monopolies and they price set with their competition - you can either buy insurance or die, or you can buy food from a few chains and a few industrialized farms or starve, you can have internet or not. There is very little competition and very little price fluctuation and very little choice. In order to live in this country we must be reliant on these companies for survival - or we can go live in a cabin in the woods. Banks choose who they lend to for both student loans and for business loans, and they also set the prices across the board - so you must always submit and rely on a monopoly to allow you to succeed - They are quickly forcing the law to make sure it stays that way. if they decide that is not in their best interest then where do you turn ? Al lot of people are turning to the government now - we're seeing some of the highest welfare rates. People just can't make their own way anymore. All the prices are too high in relation to pay and that's if they can find full time employment. We have 6 people competing for every open position - this also drives down pay rates for those working because of the extreme competition. We see this new sort of rigidity where companies want you in debt and reliant by bribing our government to overlook their swindling - Remember when you could buy a car instead of lease? (mark my words you will say that someday) Remember when you had a choice to buy organic food?) Mark my words you will say these words someday. (Remember when people could buy their own house?) Mark my words these words will be uttered someday. That is what I want to prevent.

Corporations will continue to push every boundary they will take away every choice. Their single goal is to force you to become reliant, to take every choice you have, and to force you to live life according to their standards. Some people like being told what to do, some people can't imagine life without freedom, some people don't mind if they lose it because they take it for granted because they've lead very sheltered lives. I've worked my whole life - I've made the same pay for the last 15 years, can't get a school loan from a bank, and can barely afford the cost of living. I don't want to live my life struggling in worry and fear and wondering how long I'll be employed, how long I can make it. Corporations are setting the cost of living - they're also cutting pay - if I could begin my own business, I could sustain myself without being reliant. Currently you can't compete with monopolies, and once they get wind of a small business success they ruin them. Did you know if a small business uses quick books, quick books sells that market data to a monopoly and then the monopoly will steal your niche market and run you out. They want it all - they won't allow you that success, they don't want you to be independent. Banks won't lend to people to start businesses anymore (remember when they used to?) Instead they are now allowed to rent property and buy derivatives - what a dangerous precedent huh? No more land ownership - the ultimate form of reliance. It's this sort of indentured servitude living to work never getting ahead - running a rat race - is that the America we want. That only those born to wealth will be free from the tyranny ahead? And what happens if they do lose it - they will never get back up again.

In all of recorded history, money has been, is, and will be the problem. Money is "immortal" and can thus accumulate into vast wealth and vast debt. Money needs an expiration date, but has none. We need to do away with money as it currently exists. This will not be easy, because all people have known for thousands of years is money, and the entrenched Illuminati will fight the elimination of money with all the power at their disposal.

If one assumes that the source of their power is money, then stripping it from them will not accomplish anything, because they will simply get it back within a relatively short period of time because they understand what money is, how to get it, and how to pass laws to keep it. Only when you get to the very foundation of power, which in their case is money, and permanently remove it so that it cannot be regained, will you have truly accomplished something permanent. All else is futility.

"If one assumes that the source of their power is money, then stripping it from them will not accomplish anything, because they will simply get it back within a relatively short period of time because they understand what money is"

No, not if we prevent them from doing so.

"Only when you get to the very foundation of power, which in their case is money, and permanently remove it so that it cannot be regained, will you have truly accomplished something permanent. All else is futility."

Imho, you eliminate money and substitute something else that has the purchasing power of money but doesn't allow for the accumulation of vast wealth. This is a very radical concept I am suggesting, because money is all based on the idea of transfer or exchange between two parties (barter system). Money is actually a peculiar form of barter using an artificial medium to facilitate the transfer of goods and services. By eliminating the means to transfer/exchange, you eliminate the means for wealth to occur. By eliminating the "immortality" of money, you eliminate the basis for vast wealth or vast debt. Either destroy money entirely or give it some kind of means to die (such as an expiration date).

Money is simply something that people thought up thousands of years ago as a means of convenience to replace barter. But people were short-sighted and could never have predicted the downside of money. Thousands of years later we are now witnessing that downside in full-horror spectacle. But if people were smart enough to think up money way back then we ought to be smart enough to think up something better to replace it.

I acknowledge that it will be very, very difficult. First, all of the pros and cons of the new system must be well thought out and anticipated as much as possible to determine actual viability. If reasonable viability appears likely, there must be a massive education campaign to raise awareness to millions as to the superiority of a new system and, most importantly, why money should be replaced or substantially modified. This is where the most opposition will come into play, because if the new system can be shown to be superior to the existing money system and would cure a host of problems inherent therein, the power-elite/Illuminati will realize that their power is on the line and will resist with every means at their disposal including propaganda and other disinformation techniques. With their wealth and ability to control the media they will attempt to bury the new proposal before it can take root.

But lets say we can get beyond that point and convince enough people that the new system has enough merit to be implemented. This could not be done all at once as it would create great chaos. There would have to be a transition period where both systems could co-exist as equals for a time. That is, money could still be used and the new "currency" (or whatever it is) could also be used. I would envision that a 5-to-10 year period would be required to fully divest ourselves of money. As people begin to see the superiority of the new system, it might hasten the demise of money. The actual timeframe for the complete demise of money is unknown. It could be longer or shorter than I would anticipate.

If you remove "money" as the foundation of power, those who wish to rule will simply resort to something else to rebuild or maintain their power. Most often violence.

The foundation of power is greed, lust for rule, desire to control. Power is either given to another voluntarily or taken from another by force. We live in a world where we GIVE people power when we agree with them, honor them, make them better or more significant than others, or because we declare them to be special in some way. We GIVE them our money voluntarily to entertain us, or talk to us, or amuse us, or tell us what we want to hear, or feed us, or clothe us.

If we want what someone else has to offer us, we're willing to trade whatever we have in exchange for it. Be it in dollars, or seashells, or credits, or our time, or our energy, or bubble gum. And all those who desire to control us have to do is figure out a way to monopolize or legislate us based upon what our own lusts, desires, needs might be.

I agree. BUT-stating that we must do this over and over and over won't make it happen. All all the "dreaming ahead" about what happens "beyond that point" is futile as well, until someone actually comes up with, and studies, and determines that there is such a system with "reasonable viability".

The people have the power already to dream, research, experiment, and come up with such a system already or Underdog wouldn't be proposing that such a thing is even possible. So why aren't they doing it?

The people have the power to read and research and do their own due diligence to vote IN leaders that will encourage such things and vote OUT those that won't. So why don't they?

Why did the people give their power away in the first place, and why do they refuse to take it back now? Until you figure that out-and address it-you cannot come up with a way to circumvent that problem when you try to implement the "new" system.

I'm all for anarchist-type communities, but what also needs be done is to eventually dismanlte the entire system. State-capitalism is not sustainable, it's got to go sooner or later, and the best alternative to put in its place is Anarchism. To achieve that we msut try to convince as many as possible.

Earn more money. This is a nation based on the dollar and the freedom to earn as many as you like. Form a PAC. Find some national leaders to unify your group. In a nation of 300 million, you probably will not bang enough pots for anyone to notice

sometimes better to rebuild from zero rather than remake to what we already have. no solution, but love revolution. switch the control from greedy autopilot to manual operation. turn off reserve power and try to reset the machine. turn the power back on, and continue driving under manual control by social regime. obtain the corporate tax indulgence in condition of high salary for the workers or quantity of job offers blah blah blah

It's more effective than raising taxes on the rich, because we are the direct beneficiaries of the higher wages and lower prices. We do not need to rely on a Congress that does not have our best interests in mind.

I don't agree. What you're suggesting is not going to work the way things are today. The financial elite have the overwhelming power in society including in employer/employee relations. They need to be stripped from their power, starting with HUGE tax increase.

Yeah, it's a tricky one, and I'm also sceptical to getting to involved with the political system, but maybe things like organizing forces that will push for better policies and maybe mobilize attempts to get more decent politicians in charge can be short term goals. I don't pretend to know all the answers to that question. Do you have any thoughts on how it could be done?

Waking up the people is the first step. An uninformed army can't fight if does not know who the enemy is or that it is even under attack.

It's a tough decision which to fight, the economic or the political parts of our system. Both are completely intertwined.

As individuals, each one of us can begin the economic battle today by withholding purchases, buying in bulk, buying local, making or growing your own, boycotting certain products, changing the way we spend our money, choosing to not empower the very corporations who have bought our government and buy our votes as well.

We can't vote the Koch brothers out of office, but we can reduce their profits to the point where they can no longer influence our government. Our dollar is a powerful vote we can cast every single day.

A majority is needed to remove a candidate from office. The advantage we have in battling corporations is that a relatively small percentage, just 10% of their customers is needed to force them to make changes. We could accomplish this with the present number of people who support the basic principles of Occupy. All we lack is organization.

The other side of the economic war, selling our labor, is more effective than any tax increases passed against the wealthy. Unions greatly improved our share of wealth until the 70's. As union membership decreased, so did our slice of the pie.

Everyone can ask for a raise, armed with ammo they didn't know existed. Because of inflation, that 10% raise you thought you deserved after working for the last 3 years, is no raise at all. It just keeps up with inflation. And the last two years you were actually making less than you did the first year, again because of inflation. What you should ask for is 10% plus another 3% automatic increase every year. That would be fair, and knowing that would encourage people to demand fair wages instead of accepting inferior wages.
The minimum wage must be raised. Adjusted for inflation it was $10 an hour in 1968, now it's just $7.25 an hour. This will help raise wages for those making less than $15 an hour also.

The political side takes much more planning. To topple an enemy whose strength is in political warfare requires a united force, culminating in a single assault at election time. In order to be successful we need more than just Occupy, progressives and some unions, but tea party, independents, and anyone else who has woken up to the real facts.

Whatever action we take, educations is the key. We must present a clear and concise statement of facts so that a firm understanding of how our political and economic powers has been stolen from their rightful owners and given to others.

"No, how about creating a real participatory democracy where we use our wealth to create a sustainable just society ?"

Sounds good. Looks good on paper. But life is more complicated than that.
In order to accomplish such a goal, at least two things are necessary:

1) you have to be able to define that goal so clearly AND and easily that every person in that society understands exactly what the end result should look like
2) every person has to want and be willing to do their fair share to accomplish and then maintain that end goal.

Because each person can and does interpret and define things differently than another, -you'll HAVE to define exactly what is meant by the words "participatory democracy".
How does the one you envision work? Specifically.
What kind of participation is required from everyone? Specifically.
Define "wealth" in such a society. Specifically
Define "sustainable"-specifically
Define "just"-specifically.

And if "we" did create such a society...how would "we" insure that it continued indefinitely? That it was enforced or secured?

You HAVE to be specific in order to get the majority to take you seriously enough to actually consider joining your cause. If YOU can't or haven't figured out how to do it, and it's YOUR cause, then don't expect others who haven't made it THEIR cause already to even want to jump in. It does not matter at all if in your mind THIS cause would benefit everyone and therefore should be OUR cause, or THEIR cause too. Because until you can prove that it WILL benefit everyone and that it IS doable, it's going to remain YOUR cause.

People will never voluntarily make something theirs, or claim it as their own, unless they WANT it themselves. You wanting it for them is not enough and never will be.

Again here you are AGAIN - on the attack ( berating who exactly? ) jumping into the middle of a conversation and just tearing into the Idea of how ( what direct democracy ? ) this person's idea would be a waste of time or a bad thing that can not possibly work.

Again I reiterate:

You have a tendency to say it is futile don't do anything because you are gonna change nothing. That is what your usual message boils down to. Your comment below adds up to bear witness to the fact that you talk against doing things for people in support of people and you twist it to look like geeze these aren't my thoughts these are how the people feel. Sorry you fail - but I have to admit you are pretty intelligent in how you go about selling your BS ms. oh so popular BR (-104)

So it does come down to what you remind me of by your activity. And I gotta tell you that - Tokyo Rose by any other name ( Berlin Betty or Betsy Ross ) still spews shit ( defeatist Propaganda ).

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-104) from New Hope, PA 1 hour ago

"No, how about creating a real participatory democracy where we use our wealth to create a sustainable just society ?"

Sounds good. Looks good on paper. But life is more complicated than that. In order to accomplish such a goal, at least two things are necessary:

1) you have to be able to define that goal so clearly AND and easily that every person in that society understands exactly what the end result should look like 2) every person has to want and be willing to do their fair share to accomplish and then maintain that end goal.

Because each person can and does interpret and define things differently than another, -you'll HAVE to define exactly what is meant by the words "participatory democracy". How does the one you envision work? Specifically.
What kind of participation is required from everyone? Specifically. Define "wealth" in such a society. Specifically Define "sustainable"-specifically Define "just"-specifically.

And if "we" did create such a society...how would "we" insure that it continued indefinitely? That it was enforced or secured?

You HAVE to be specific in order to get the majority to take you seriously enough to actually consider joining your cause. If YOU can't or haven't figured out how to do it, and it's YOUR cause, then don't expect others who haven't made it THEIR cause already to even want to jump in. It does not matter at all if in your mind THIS cause would benefit everyone and therefore should be OUR cause, or THEIR cause too. Because until you can prove that it WILL benefit everyone and that it IS doable, it's going to remain YOUR cause.

People will never voluntarily make something theirs, or claim it as their own, unless they WANT it themselves. You wanting it for them is not enough and never will be.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

Don't need to - the comment is there for anyone to review. struggleforfreedom80 has been talking about participatory ( or direct democracy ) democracy for quite a while - and no you didn't ask him about it you just went off on his idea ( it is all there in your comment if anyone cares to look at it ). Your comment to sff80 is quite obviously a put down and not an inquiry for more information.

Yes the truth about me....hmmm....that I do not take kindly to attackers of OWS or Occupy or any movement of the people for the people. Yeah I think that is pretty much obvious to anyone who has been here for any length of time. Thanks for helping to point that out though it really was not necessary for you to do so.

Yes, and I encourage anyone to review what I've said and posted here and respond for themselves if they'd like to.

Is it your belief that struggleforfreedom needs you to respond on his behalf? I'd certainly expect him to respond for himself if he felt attacked or that I 'went off on him', and will happily take that up with him personally. Same for sff80.

Apparently other readers have different OPINIONS of what qualifies as an "attack" and as reasonable questions and issues than you do.

What was being fought fifty - sixty some years ago in Cuba was and is still the same thing we're fighting now today all over the world.
The actual tactics for today may be a little different than what were used back then in Cuba, but the thinking is the same. Che's book is still very much relevant.
May I add Che's image is often synonymous with a gun, but its not about guns, its about thought. Che once wrote revolution is not necessarily about overthrowing a government, its about changing the thinking of man.

I propose three Amendments to our constitution in pursuit of a more perfect union:

AMENDMENT XXVIII
Remove legislative authority from congress. Balancing the budget is the main job of congress. It MUST be balanced and on time or those voting against it or abstaining are fired and interim replacements appointed by a comittee of the offending member's political opponents. Their power to tax, declare war, conduct congressional investigations, and impeach the president etc is unchanged. The power to mint currency is returned to congress and the Federal Reserve Bank is dissolved. Interest rates are determined by markets.

AMENDMENT XXIX
Anyone can write a bill. All bill must be no more than two 8.5"x11" pages long, single spaced, 12 pt font, Helvetica or Arial font with standard 1" margins. Bills are vetted by signed public petition. Every January 1st and June 1st the six bills with the most signatures are compiled and publicly disseminated by the secretary of state no later than Jan 4th and June 4th. Signature counts on all other bills are nullified and reset to 0. February 4th is a national holiday "Democracy Day." Every Democracy Day and Independence Day the people vote on the six bills locked in the previous month. We've all had at least 30 days to read up to 24 pages of raw legislation which is plenty of time to inform ourselves. No law passes without the informed consent of the people. Lobbying for legislation requires bribing 300 million citizens rather than their 535 house and senate members. We pass or reject 12 laws per year. Lobbyists lose most of their influence.

AMENDMENT XXX
All state and federal non-constitutional statute and common law (including executive orders, tax code, government code, passed or established after September 17, 1787 is rendered null and void. This country started with no laws except the constitution then and we can do it again. This time we'll do it right though.

It's not reactionary it's a proactive solution which would allow future societies to live in whatever kind of society they want. Any society needs a framework of guidelines for it's organization. The US Constitution is a handy start. Unfortunately (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) it does not provide a means for direct referendum to amend it. So any movement of the people in such a way would be roughly "illegal" technically but the precedent is already there in the Declaration that it is our duty to Alter or Abolish.

p.s. Occupy is a natural ally with the Tea party. They share the same enemy: a government that doesn't represent the electorate for one reason or another.

Yes it is: "All state and federal non-constitutional statute and common law (including executive orders, tax code, government code, passed or established after September 17, 1787 is rendered null and void."

"it's a proactive solution which would allow future societies to live in whatever kind of society they want."

Oh. Does that include a society completely without capitalism?

"p.s. Occupy is a natural ally with the Tea party."

No, they're not!

"They share the same enemy: a government that doesn't represent the electorate for one reason or another."

The Tea Party is a reactionary, ultra-right-wing group of people who have been misled to believe that government is the problem. The Occupy movement has correctly understood that it is the financial institutions who are the biggest problems of them all.

This is the fundamental flaw at the heart of your argument. you can not separate the financial institutions as the sole cause of the problem. You must also realize that it is corporate power over the political arena that makes the financial institutions so dangerous. You are only seeing half the tumor.

The finacial institutions is the biggest problem, not the only problem. They have gotten so much power that they don't just have the overwhelming power in the economy, they also have the politicians in their back pocket.

You keep saying "reactionary" like it's a bad thing. "You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect." Anything and everything might be considered reactionary. Occupy is reactionary.
If your goal is a society without capitalism good luck with that. I haven't seen it work yet. But you have every right to agitate for any position you like.
For those of us with the more humble goal of a free society that truly governs itself in fact amending the highest law of our land is a pretty good start.
It will take help though. Which means political alliances. You don't have to love the tea party or what it's members stand for in order to benefit from the destruction of our mutual enemy. Best not to burn bridges I say. You grossly mischaracterize a lot of very smart people when you say they've all been duped.

http://bit.ly/OOpn0k Social liberalization in the American or European sense of the word "liberal?" But let's table these semantics.

To directly answer your question. yes but I don't think it will work.

There's a huge weakness to your parliamentary democracy example. Feudalism was an aristocracy, which is a lot like democracy because A king couldn't rule without the political and military support of his vassals. Besides that, Magna Carta was a top-down change and whatever Occupy/Tea comes up with will need to be bottom-up change.

I agree there is little freedom in unregulated capitalism but there is also little freedom in regulated capitalism. The same is true of communism or whatever other ism you might espouse that is not capitalism. I disagree that right wing libertarians want to hand power to corporations. Right wing fascists want to hand power to corporations.

/"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini/ (and he should know)

The occupy and tea party movements are both libertarian at heart There's a party pooper in every crowd though.

Earlier you asked me if my solution would be free enough for people to replace capitalism and I said yes. You talk about libertarian socialism while linking to videos about direct democracy. They are not the same thing. Let me ask you this, If you could have your dream society, would it be free enough to let me start a business, profit from it and keep my profits?

Your society is doomed to become free of workplaces. You claim to be for freedom but envisage a society where I am not free to be make myself better today than I was yesterday. You would kill entrepreneurship and all means of production along with it. You would eliminate all incentive to invent! You would freeze technology. What if some democratically run business does better than another democratically run business? The smarter/better/stronger/faster one can't be allowed to keep the wealth it produces so kill the bigger one right? Keep choking out the best and brightest until we're all living in a Randian nightmare. Fundamentally, your goal is not tenable. No law or organizational structure you can ever produce will stop people from acting in their self interest. How old are you?

"You claim to be for freedom but envisage a society where I am not free to be make myself better today than I was yesterday."

I do not concider you having the right to profit on other people's work and give other people orders freedom. The economic institutions must be run democratically by the participants. You'd have wonderful life because the wealth would be shared.

"You would kill entrepreneurship and all means of production along with it."

LS would be a society where we decided production together democratically.

"You would eliminate all incentive to invent!"

No. Humans are creative by nature. Besides, there'd be an incentive to invent in a libertarian socialsit society - by contributing with ideas you make the soceity better for all, including you.

"What if some democratically run business does better than another democratically run business?"

Libertarian Socialism is not just about democratic workplaces. It's about creating democracy on all levels, including democratic communities etc.

You need to revise your philosophy include freedom of the individual. To use the analogy used in the video you linked to about direct democracy: You're focused on the plant but plants don't reproduce without flowers. Your ideology needs to be tempered with a little more real-world experience. For example. Try running a business by committee before you extol it's virtue.

This is a good discussion topic, and a discussion that needs to be had, but you're running up and down 100 pages worth of vibrant conversation trying to snuff out anything that doesn't match your socialist ideology and divert it away from a real discussion of practical solutions.

Politics is the art of the possible. Turning the tea party into socialists is not possible. Even creating a significant minority of socialists in the USA is probably not possible. I think Occupy is way better off uniting with Tea to get the lobbying and influence out of politics and going back to a more direct form of democracy. That is a goal that might get accomplished in one lifetime or two. You lose mass appeal the second you start to attack the major cultural premises like theism, individualism, capitalism, etc. And face it, any change will need mass appeal.

Only in a society without undemocratic hierarchies can people be really free.

false

I'm all for practical solutions.

false

What I'm saying is that private tyranny is not the answer

reductio ad absurdum

[Tea Party] values are not in any way shared by OWS.

false

The TP people have all reason to be pissed off; the problem is that they're in many ways pissed at the wrong people.

false

Can we go back to discussing the Amendments please

Here. I'll start: So far the thread has discussed the various ways to make an amendment happen, filling up congress 2/3 majority with incorruptible people (hardly possible) filling up 3/4 of state legislatures with simple majorities of incorruptible people (more possible but still difficult) or some kind of secession. The latter might only take a large petition to put the measure on a general ballot in states like CA that allow for state constitutional amendments by public referendum. Anyone know of other states that allow that?

Tea wants to cut taxes on everyone, not just the wealthy. It wants to eliminate many institutions not privatize them. Let them. HELP them. Then build the type of institutions you want to have, because the current ones are not working and occupy and tea both agree on that.

Insider information has paved many a road to financial success. Consider that guy from Texas. He told me it would cost him $250 for an engine from a junkyard down there. Here in Missouri they run about $100. The difference (I think) is in the little-known fact that some states don't allow "self-help" salvage yards. Liability insurance prevents them from letting non-employees into their yards, consequently a far higher price for parts. Here in Missouri, no such restrictions and far lower prices. Insider info.

When I was younger I had entertained the idea of driving cars up there and selling them as you could make major cash that way.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (3409) from St Louis, MO 0 minutes ago

I'm waiting for a response from Alaska right now about an engine I have for sale on eBay. It's absolutely nothing special (straight six out of an '87 van) but the fact that he's interested despite the shipping costs got me to thinking about what it must be like up there when an emergency arises and you need something no later than yesterday. A guy in Texas passed on it when the cheapest shipping he could find was about $350. That's Missouri to Texas! What do you think it would be to ship 500 pounds to Alaska? I'm guessing triple.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink | Mod: ban comments threads admin edit remove

Well they don't have an income tax ( state ) and life around the coastal areas can be milder then here in Minnesota due to the ocean current bringing warm water along the coast - but I do understand that you really do not want to go up past the 3rd mountain range as - there - it can be like being on another planet.

I'm waiting for a response from Alaska right now about an engine I have for sale on eBay. It's absolutely nothing special (straight six out of an '87 van) but the fact that he's interested despite the shipping costs got me to thinking about what it must be like up there when an emergency arises and you need something no later than yesterday. A guy in Texas passed on it when the cheapest shipping he could find was about $350. That's Missouri to Texas! What do you think it would be to ship 500 pounds to Alaska? I'm guessing triple.

Since our militias have all been nationalized under the national guard a violent secession is pretty much impossible. But again if it were done to send a message rather than as an act of overt violent warfare. Who knows? Maybe Congress would fire itself If california (being the 7th largest economy in the world last I checked) held their feet to the fire like that.

Right. 2/3 of congress then 2/3 ratification of states. Alternately 2/3 of states may pass an ammendment over congress' collective head if they so desire but I don't think that's ever happened before. So Which would be easier?
(1) filling congress up with a 2/3 majority
(2) filling 2/3 of states legislatures up with a simple majority
(3) another secession

Bingo! So, lets EXPOSE them! Lets get the global elite oligarchs' names on the signs of the protesters! These parasites need to see their names lit up and on the lips of the masses. THIS is their biggest fear. Almost everyone can get a cardboard sign and a marker.

I agree. And that also incudes informing so-called "libertarians" and RonPaulers that they've been duped into supporting tyranny, and to convince them to become engaged in what really matters: building a more democratic and egalitarian society.

That being said, I'm pretty much an activist for activism. I break a lot of progressive's balls on here for endorsing the D/R gov, but at the end of the day, if more people actually went and campaigned and did something besides bitch and vote once every two years, we wouldnt be at the edge of the cliff.

But why do prefer private enterprise over government? Government can at least be run democratically, while private enterprise is just tyranny: non-elected powerful people and corporations having an overwhelming control in the economy. If you like the idea of democracy, shouldn't you be against tyrannical undemocratic concentration of power?

Im for private enterprise with strong regulation for the multinationals (instead of political fronts like the FDA has turned into).

Gov in my opinion is the ultimate in tyranny. They take my money for SS, I have no say in it what so ever. Zero say. Everyone wants the troops home, zero choices. Same for tax and trade code.

Government runs under the guise of democracy, but its not. They do what they want, when they want, a nd have a military to back them if people get too upset.

At least with private you get a choices, or the ability to create another option. Or course, in this fascist state we are in, we get zero choice with no alternatives, along with private companies running a for profit scheme.

Gov usually gives a one size fits all policy. Like their backing of the power companies. Every city has ONE choice. Or SS.

They have now brought that same perversion to healthcare. Either give us universal or get the gov out all together.

The key with private is that when the people want something different, they can get it.

Honestly, with the level of apathy in this country, it doesnt really matter what we do. It will become corrupted, because no one pays attention. Look at JP MOrgan, LIBOR or MF Global. They are still robbing us. No one cares. Its a shameful display of self governance.

It can be extremely tyrannical if its very undemocratic (Soviet Union Syria etc) A democratic one, fex. with scandinavian-type model, is not tyrannical.

"They take my money for SS, I have no say in it what so ever."

If the government is democratic you'd have say.. And in a healthy society people should be glad to have systems that take care of the people who are in need. We have more wealth than ever, strongly increase SS

"Government runs under the guise of democracy, but its not."

The US (and lots of other countries) suffer from a huge democratic deficit, but the solution is not more private power; that only decreases democracy. The solution is more direct participatory democracy.

"At least with private you get a choices or the ability to create another option."

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

Complete change from one constitution to another
Modification of an existing constitution.[1]

careful should you decide to respond to that struggleforfreedom80 clown below. I think he is a nark out trolling to entrap people. Check out the thread from my post above. If he can't figure out what revolution means....

Wachovia Bank reached a $160 million settlement with the Justice Department over allegations that a failure in bank controls enabled drug traffickers to launder drug money by transferring money from Mexican currency-exchange houses to the bank.
Prosecutors said the bank processed $420 billion in transactions without using proper money-laundering detection.

you guys are changing the views of the public....we realize how pathetic and disgusting all you protesters are. Basically turning all the protests into mobile homeless shelters, wasting your time and energy that could be put into doing something productive.